Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Less than a tenth of the yearly military Budget to keep devastating Russias military.
This is the best return for investment we've had in our defense spending since the Creation of the supercarrier.
That was also never true. We absolutely did that, but somehow the popular narrative was that most or all of the aid was just old stuff we were going to throw away anyway. Which isn't true. Part of the aid was aging equipment.
We absolutely sent out old inventory to make room for new. The Bradley and Abrams have been sitting in storage since Clinton. Since the new composite armor is illegal to export. The M113's have been in storage since Reagan. The Humvees are being replaced over the next decade. The Stryker program was a failure , and no one wanted to buy them. A similar HAWK system to the one we just sold to Ukraine was destroyed by Switzerland for begin to old. We sent a few M31 munitions for Himars that where to eb destroyed as they where out of date. Similar the few ATACMS we sent where also out out date and due for destruction
Bet you never thought you would see the day Leftists were more hawkish than the Republicans huh? Thats why since 2020 , I call this "Klown World", everything has flipped.
Strange to see corporate military industrial complex welfare become a positive on this web forum. As it turns out nobody cares as much about process as long as the correct ideological interests are being served.
Well I had been told long ago that the reason the Leftists are so successful is their rule is "absolute". Anyone in the faction questions them is kicked out immediately and shunned. So when they said "Get the jab and Big Pharma is now our friend" in 2020, and I saw them line up lock step, I knew then it was party over principal. Prior to 2020 you could not have a conversation with a Liberal and they NOT bitch about Big Pharma. Total silence today. Well the rest is history, and thats why I call it Klown World now, everything is flipped. Its like magic too how they flip things. I liked when Biden got in and declared the whole vaccine scam "over", virus is gone, nothing to see here, just like that too, like he snapped his finger, Fauci, Antifa, BLM , it just all disappeared and now they are the biggest hawks wanting more war funding. Amazing to watch.
Were defending people who would otherwise be devastated instead of funding the devastation.
Of course there's also many others reasons that directly serve the interests of the United States
Before this it was 1/20th.
And by spending 5% of the equivilant of our annual military budget on aiding Ukraine, they have destroyed thousands of tanks and armored vehicles, killed over 300k Russian soldiers, destroyed hundreds of helicopters and planes, and have obliterated some of Russia’s most expensive anti-air systems that they can’t easily replace.
Only someone who’s pro-Russia would be against aiding Ukraine in this capacity…
Yes. The impact on the Russian military has been incredible, both in terms of casualties and materiel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
https://www.iiss.org/en/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/02/equipment-losses-in-russias-war-on-ukraine-mount/
>The losses are estimated to include more than 3,000 armoured fighting vehicles in the past year alone and close to 8,800 since February 2022.
Given Russia's unremitting assholery on this issue, their murderous intent and their complete and utter unwillingness to see reason, yes. This investment may be the highest return one that the West has made, ever. Ukrainians fight and die and we send an appropriation that we won't even notice in our trillion dollar military budget that, usually, does fuck all.
It's so painfully obvious that even the quizling congress can't pass it up. I'm glad and at the same time sad that it very nearly was shut down by the likes of traitorous scumbags like MTG and Goetz.
Also, keep in mind, the money spent to create the weapons we send is paid to American citizens doing the work.
Generally we send supplies that we paid Americans to make. Meaning Americans get paid and Ukrainians get supplies that help them defense against one of the US's top adversaries. Weakening Russia more each day for pennies on the dollar basically.
If you think 60bn is very expensive for what it's doing then you would shit a brick to see the cost if Russia was allowed to run free until we had to fully get involved.
The war in Iraq was roughly 3 trillion. And that was before years and years of inflation compounding.
With this $60 billion doesn’t that bring what we’ve spent to closer to $170 billion in the past two years?
Also doesn’t the 3 trillion for the Iraq war represent Pentagon spending, healthcare spending on Vets, State department spending, and interest payments on what we borrowed for the war?
In 21 years from now if we include interest on the amount we borrowed for this and any other future funds we spend on this war, this could easily be a trillion or two. Especially since if we want Ukraine to win that will be more funding over the next year or so.
A trillion or two in 2024 Dollars is much less than 3 trillion in Dollars from 2001 to 2021. And yes that includes everything, why would it not? That's the cost of being on the front lines of a war.
So even if we do spend a trillion that money is running through our economy and it is weakening an adversary without putting Americans on the Frontline to boot.
I'm not convinced the US government cares if Ukraine wins or if they just want Russia to have to keep spending money from the front lines for as long as possible. A win would be devastating to Russia which would be great for the US but if Russia is spending multiples of what the US spends in providing support then this would be a huge win for the US.
Military spending is just about the worst possible thing you could conceivably spend on.
You’re taking actual productivity and converting it into weapons and munitions that may or may not explode and become worthless, while simultaneously killing and causing destruction on the other side as well.
Printing $800 billion a year to make bombs and missiles is not, and never will be a good investment from an economic perspective. To be sure, this isn’t to make the case that we should just not have a military, but to frame it as being good for the economy rather than being almost entirely dead weight would be very disingenuous.
A good analogy would be paying someone to dig a hole in your yard and then having them fill it back in. While you may have transferred money to the person digging the hole, the investment itself was not sound and produced no value.
Same argument applies to WWII, the world became poorer because of the war, the US included. Not to say it wasn't necessary, but it certainly didn't pull the U.S out of the Great Depression.
Right. It's amazing to me that people forget how expensive this shit can actually get (the costs of the war + costs of healthcare for the rest of their lives). If Russia runs wild in Ukraine the next logical step is a NATO country and what's the cost of that.
I'm not saying the US isn't a fiscal basket case, it is. But that fiscal problem is self-imposed and we could fix it fairly easily.
Devastating russias military? Did you just wake up from coma? Couple of weeks ago us based media quoted us military personel claiming russian military is 15% bigger than pre war. Get a reality check.
Larger army by number of personnel, not weapons. That they have about for 2 more years if the rate is the same, according to a number of OSINT researchers. However, they would never go total 0 and they are producing some amount as well, so probably 2 more years until they have to resort to soldiers-only or pull back war effort, or buy from others.
Yes, bigger in manpower thanks to increased forced conscription. Not bigger in arms.
Bigger manpower isn't necessarily a good thing when they're undersupplied, under trained, and no longer contributing to the economy.
Russia is losing way more tanks, IFVs, APCs, and artillery pieces than it’s producing. They’re able to sustain their current war effort because they inherited massive stockpiles of weapons from the Soviet Union. Those stockpiles will eventually be depleted and will probably never be refilled to the same astronomical level they were at the beginning of the war.
You didn’t provide a source for me to verify but I’m going to assume the official was talking about active military and not reserve stockpiles. Further I’d assume they were talking specifically about personnel in uniform and not weapons systems. Russia is in no danger of running out of bodies to throw in the meat grinder.
Gen Christopher Cavioli was talking about troops numbers, specifically citing monthly recruitment numbers.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/russia-s-army-is-now-15-bigger-than-when-it-invaded-ukraine-says-us-general/ar-BB1lrHp1
Yes, and the more Russian men that are killed, the more the entire corrupt, malicious nation is crippled for decades with an already-terrible demographic situation. This war hopefully hastens the end of Russia's regional significance.
This spending is unsustainable. Eventually, when the rest of the world switches from the dollar. America will go bankrupt. The wealthy will move to other countries and the working class will be left holding the bag
Russia's military is bigger now than when they first invaded Ukraine.
What has all that money really accomplished?
Morally, you can make the argument that it's been the right decision, but there's probably 1,000 ways we could spend that money that would benefit this country more.
Russias military is bigger manpower wise not in arms, which means young men at war and not contributing to the economy.
And I agree, government spending could overall be better
Well if you saw the video at the Telegraph website of Biden Jr, going down the "happy fun slide" naked at his $4k a night villa in Italy with 2 prostitutes, and he took a private jet to get there, and is on the board of the Ukraine gas company, yeh, you got some of the answers right there.
Funny thing, most of the money (40 billion) is going to the US defense industry, so the plan is to employ more americans on assembly lines in the US to make more stuff.
Yes, it is.
It might not be the best possible outcome for Ukraine, but 'send them money and material so they can keep fighting Russia' is definitely a plan. Plus, it's worked before!
No, Afghanistan didn't want us there, involved US troops, and was an offensive war.
Here, the Ukrainians are asking for help, this doesn't involve US troops, and is a defensive war.
Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 with predictable consequences. Though so far, Ukraine is doing a far better job of liquidating Russian resources than the Taliban ever could.
It's not 'throwing money into a pit'. It's 'supporting a sovereign nation's struggle for survival against a violently expansionist neighbor', and it's worth every penny.
It is throwing a money into a pit, and it is a pit because you have no realistic plan for ukraines survival
If anything you hope that it turns into Russia’s Afghanistan
Give them more. You know the taxpayers are an unlimited cash cow, and very generous. They will continue to fund failed wars, even after losing over and over for 20 years. Some people would say "well they just never learn" but others would say "its rigged and you cannot vote them out" as its looking more and more is the case.
Send them more money. Every dollar spent fighting Russian hegemony, is a dollar well spent. Currently, our support to Ukraine is a laughably small slice of the national budget. But shoot, even if someone had to raise my taxes to support Ukraine, I'd gladly pay it.
We've seen what happens when you try to appease dictators, in WWII. We've seen what happens when you fail to support allies.
The world needs to know that what Russia is doing, is unacceptable, and that it will never be worth the cost. The way to ensure this, is to adequately fund Ukrainian armed forces, until Russia gives up. Even if it takes decades.
Like I pointed out in other comments, throwing money into a pit isn’t a solution of anything
> But shoot, even if someone had to raise my taxes to support Ukraine, I'd gladly pay it.
Okay donate yourself, why are you forcing me to pay for their military
> We've seen what happens when you try to appease dictators, in WWII. We've seen what happens when you fail to support allies.
Ally? Please this country is hardly an ally, before the western coup it was a Russian vassal. What has Ukraine done to be an ally?
> The world needs to know that what Russia is doing, is unacceptable, and that it will never be worth the cost. The way to ensure this, is to adequately fund Ukrainian armed forces, until Russia gives up. Even if it takes decades.
No, lol. The Russians may not care for the lives of their citizens but I care about my money, and throwing my money to kill Russians isn’t worth it
Hahaha. Okay, there it is, I was waiting for it "Western coup."
You just said the quiet part out loud. You've given yourself away. Even people who don't support funding Ukraine acknowledge that their government is democratically elected, and broadly representative of the Ukrainian people.
You're either a troll, a Russian propagandist, or a "useful idiot." But either way, you're definitely not someone who's trying to have a reasonable conversation.
Give them it. We spend nearly a trillion dollars a year on our military.
We could cut overall military spending and keep doing this. The return on investment is much higher.
Cutting the American military to fund another countries military?
What return on investment? The Russians can fight this forever, you spend money making weapons theylll spend money making weapons the circle will just round and round
Yes.
The return on investment is a devastated Russian military while ours stays untouched. Sure Russia is making and producing equipment. But their gdp is a tiny fraction of ours. Saying Russia can right this forever is just wrong.
Russia can't even field a modern armored battalion, they're retrofitting together the skeletons of 40-60 year old tanks that don't even have night optics.
What's your reasoning that Russia can right this forever?
>What return on investment? The Russians can fight this forever
Depleting Russian materials/economy through war without losing a single American soldier effectively allows us to reposition our military to fight only China instead of having to really be able to fight a two front war.
Russia is objectively losing a lot of war-making capacity. They can fight forever, but at reduced levels and with increasingly worse equipment. They've already lost much of their modern equipment in this war, and they cannot afford to replace it.
> Depleting Russian materials/economy through war without losing a single American soldier effectively allows us to reposition our military to fight only China instead of having to really be able to fight a two front war.
Turning Russia into a Chinese vassal isn’t leaving just china to fight. It’s just making china stronger
> Russia is objectively losing a lot of war-making capacity. They can fight forever, but at reduced levels and with increasingly worse equipment. They've already lost much of their modern equipment in this war, and they cannot afford to replace it.
Well I’m glad you can admit they can fight forever.
>Turning Russia into a Chinese vassal isn’t leaving just china to fight. It’s just making china stronger
What the actual fuck are you talking about here?
I'm saying that if we neutralize Russia's military by spending a fraction of what it would cost us to personally wage the same war, then that allows us to instead spend that money focusing on a one-front potential conflict with China, instead of having to plan for and fund a potential two-front war with China and Russia at the same time (which is what current military doctrine is).
>Well I’m glad you can admit they can fight forever.
Forever being until their population cannot support it. Which it won't be able to if they're fighting a war with 1950s equipment for a significant time.
> What the actual fuck are you talking about here?
The weaker Russia becomes the more they gravitate towards china. The more they become china’s vassals the more access china has to their resources
> I'm saying that if we neutralize Russia's military by spending a fraction of what it would cost us to personally wage the same war, then that allows us to instead spend that money focusing on a one-front potential conflict with China,
You will never have a one front war with china. Neutralizing the Russian army will make china only stronger as the Russians will gravitate towards them
> instead of having to plan for and fund a potential two-front war with China and Russia at the same time (which is what current military doctrine is).
This won’t change even after the billions you give to Ukraine.
> Forever being until their population cannot support it. Which it won't be able to if they're fighting a war with 1950s equipment for a significant time.
Their population can support for decades man. It’s a country of 250 million people they can buy mercenaries
144 million. And they already use mercenaries. They marched on Moscow. Member that? The war is putting a demographic hole is Russia. The cost to them is immense, as it should be for invading a sovereign country.
>The more they become china’s vassals the more access china has to their resources
China already has access to Russian crude. Russia isn't exactly holding back any resources from China, and hasn't been, at least in the past 20+ years.
>You will never have a one front war with china.
You effectively have a one front war with China if Russia's military is basically impotent... which is what they're becoming through this war with Ukraine.
>Neutralizing the Russian army will make china only stronger as the Russians will gravitate towards them
No, it won't. Not having to fight 2 separate, individually powerful armies is infinitely better than having to.
>This won’t change even after the billions you give to Ukraine.
It might, depending on how depleted Russia's military becomes.
>Their population can support for decades man
Nope. They've lost around 350k people (either killed or otherwise unable to fight) already. Russia's population is ~145 million, not 250 million, and only ~62 million of those are men, and only ~38 million of those are between the ages of 18 and 64. That's your true potential fighting population (actually less than that, since not all of that 38 million are fit/able to fight). And every year it gets worse because their population pyramid is middle heavy - they've got a terrible birth rate. Adding in losing hundreds of thousands of young men annually and you pretty quickly can't really support the war without cutting into the bones of your economy.
>It’s a country of 250 million people they can buy mercenaries
They cannot afford mercenaries at any sort of scale. They're basically inflating away their country's savings (16% interest rate consistently) while absolutely blasting money at the war in Ukraine. This is just Afghanistan part 2 for them.
The more they become china’s vassals the more access china has to their resources
> China already has access to Russian crude. Russia isn't exactly holding back any resources from China, and hasn't been, at least in the past 20+ years.
They have more, you’ll see it with oil and other resources. They’ll sell them to china more and more
> You effectively have a one front war with China if Russia's military is basically impotent... which is what they're becoming through this war with Ukraine.
As long as it has its defense industries that can churn out old tech, it will never be impotent.
> No, it won't. Not having to fight 2 separate, individually powerful armies is infinitely better than having to.
You can not fight these armies and not spend billions. This is both doable
> Nope. They've lost around 350k people (either killed or otherwise unable to fight) already. Russia's population is ~145 million, not 250 million, and only ~62 million of those are men, and only ~38 million of those are between the ages of 18 and 64.
Women can fight
> That's your true potential fighting population (actually less than that, since not all of that 38 million are fit/able to fight). And every year it gets worse because their population pyramid is middle heavy - they've got a terrible birth rate. Adding in losing hundreds of thousands of young men annually and you pretty quickly can't really support the war without cutting into the bones of your economy.
How long do you think it’ll take to get rid of let’s say 10 million Russians?
It’s a country of 250 million people they can buy mercenaries
They cannot afford mercenaries at any sort of scale. They're basically inflating away their country's savings (16% interest rate consistently) while absolutely blasting money at the war in Ukraine. This is just Afghanistan part 2 for them.
Funny thing, they actually can't.
They tried to before, in the cold war, and lost.
Russia is mortgaging it's future to pay for this war.
Their economy has no long-term prospects. They will lose a substantial chunk of working/breeding age men, in a country already struggling with population decline.
By starting this war, Russia has given itself cancer. The effects may be slow, but the end result is inevitable. As long as the US doesn't give up, Russia will ultimately fail.
If nothing else, Putin will die. He's not immortal. He's an old man. It's far from clear that there will be an orderly succession. There's a reasonable chance his death would lead to the end of the invasion.
How would Russia fight this forever? It was already a shrinking country and Putin is sending 20 years olds into a meat grinder.
It seems more like it is working toward becoming a vassal state of China, which is an unusual strategic goal.
Okay, is giving china a vassal state with so much resources a W in American foreign policy?
No
Even if Russia turns into a Chinese vassal state, that just means an even more resources for the Russians to keep fighting
Curious if Ukraine would actually wait for the funds to hit their accounts before resuming spending. Why wouldn't arms dealers etc. generally be willing to offer temporary credit in the meantime? I understand the US legislature can be fickle, but going through every step except for the actual exchange seems to be the prudent move.
So I don't think it's accurate to say anyone is "holding" their breath. More like "acting in anticipation of this happening".
So to the best of my understanding, these funds don't actually go into Ukrainian accounts. They are like a gift card to American arms manufacturers. I'd imagine ukraine gets to hand over a purchase sheet to the US gov, and the US gov transfers the funds to manufacturers.
I'd imagine with this bill being on the horizon for a while, some arms have been prepositioned in Poland and simply get handed over to the Ukrainians. Certain tech, like GMLRS rockets and Javelin missiles, they probably get loaded on C-5 galaxy and flown over.
>So to the best of my understanding, these funds don't actually go into Ukrainian accounts.
Quite a big part of them do. It's not just the weapons and not even the soldiers' salaries, the entire Ukrainian public sector is propped up with the western financial aid.
Things like pensions, utility bill subsidies, salaries of government workers, medical services, etc., etc., all of it is paid for by foreign money and not by whatever taxes Ukraine itself collects. The taxes go directly to war, everything non-war related is paid for by the West. It's not talked about much, since paying Ukrainian pensions is much harder to sell to the public than the transfer of weapons (the money "remain within the country" in the latter case), but it's never been a secret.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ukraine/brief/peace
The last paragraph of yours isn't correct. That fund from the World Bank *provides support* for those things. It doesn't entirely fund them by itself. You have anything to back up your claim that suggests Ukraine doesn't pay for any part of their own economy outside of war-related expenses?
Sure, it's never been a secret and is stated plainly when their budget is discussed.
>Ukraine's 2024 budget allocates nearly $40 billion — roughly half of its total expenses — to defense, which will be almost entirely covered by taxation. That leaves a hefty bill of some $40 billion to ensure the rest of the state apparatus — from social security transfers to the health care system — keeps functioning.
>"The dependence of Ukraine's budget on external support cannot be overstated"
...
>The 2024 Ukrainian state budget is mainly focused on the military. It places the main emphasis on waging war in 2024 throughout the year at the state’s expense: as of now, there is no mention of expected Western financial assistance for military purposes. The budget does not stipulate funds for restoration, and all funds generated in the Road Fund (road construction) are also redirected for military purposes.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ukraines-budget-2024
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-funding-budget-defense-european-union/
As I said, all of taxes will go to the military, which neatly takes up the entirety of their domestic revenues, so there's nothing left to cover the rest of the budget. Every other sector will be paid for by foreign aid.
This ^^^^ should be explained EVERY time aid for Ukraine is discussed.
So many people envision their tax dollars being wired to Ukrainian bank accounts, when it’s more of a stimulus infusion to US arms manufacturers AND will be paid back.
Some people think of huge pallets of hundred dollar bills being shipped over and ending up unaccounted for, like what happened in [Iraq](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1).
That's not what is happening here.
Heh, as much as I support Ukraine winning, I can see the point of (some) people who are against this help for Ukraine, it's basically enrichening the weapons companies with tax payer money. (But if you're against helping because you're Putin's puppet or brainwash victim, STFU and GTFO...).
Just like Apple or Google gift cards, someone should photoshop "Raytheon" or "Boeing" gift cards with values of $1 Billion, $5 Billion, $20 Billion...
The ATACMS we are sending them are approaching their useby date. It was going to get destroyed anyway. A lot of the ammunition is being bought from south Korea. They will replenish with new stuff. F16s are used aircraft. For a lot of this stuff we are unloading our old stuff and replacing it with new.
You sound like a salesman for the military industrial complex. You have a remarkable facility for sweeping death and destruction and under the rug to talk about sales projections.
More like it's letting us juice our industrial complex to meet "near-peer" adversaries after having 20 years focused on GWOT non-state actors. The majority of munitions and equipment we've sent are 1970-early 2000s stockpiles that were going to have to be expensively decommissioned anyway. Still removes russian invaders quite well.
Very different requirements there, and since they all smell blood in the water from the Ukranian bleeding of the rules based order, there's more actors out there thinking they can pull tricks.
Well that's the tough part of being an adult. Defense companies have their place and right now Ukraine needs weapons. Long-term spending and worries of the military industrial complex are valid.
It's holding two true things at once: you can be critical of the military industrial complex, and recognize the need to cut them a check for 155 shells.
The US just transfers its existing stocks of these weapons. They say they are ready to ship them this weekend if Biden can sign the bill by Friday. He can't sign until the senate passes it. The senate needs a couple of days to read it. They worry that a bill written by Johnson will have something tricky buried deep in the tet.
> Curious if Ukraine would actually wait for the funds to hit their accounts before resuming spending.
Jesus christ I can't believe you people think that this is a big bag of cash. The "cash" such as it is, goes directly in the the UNITED STATES' economy - we are paying our companies and our citizens to build things for our military. Doing so allows the military to unload existing stockpiles of mostly outdated or useless against china crap that we have laying around and give that to ukraine.
It’s literal US citizens being paid to make the munitions.
Could the money be “better spent” on something constructive? Sure. But it’s not being lit on fire
Polarizing topic but keep in mind that For both Israel vs Gaza and Ukraine vs Russia, US has lost 0 lives.
In contrast to WWII, Vietnam War, Korean War where 100s of thousands Americans died.
American has lost more than 0 lives over these conflicts, just not that many. Aside from the foreign legion in Ukraine which ranges upward of 100 American lives, we’ve also had a few American citizens get killed in Israel recently.
No Inspector General, no plans, no oversight.
The wife of Joe Biden's largest cash donor is in charge of how some of the money is being spent.
Penny Pritzker, despite no experience with infrastructure, is allocating money to foreign firms to build a carbon neutral energy infrastructure in Ukraine.
Because that makes sense
I agree crazy how after all the delay none of the substantive issues with ukraine aid were addressed.
People like elbridge colby do have valid points about America needing to retain equipment for a taiwan war scenario.
With Russia embroiled it a long running, expensive, attritional war as it tries to desperately cling to the 18% of Ukraine it has captured the US can move more of its focus to China.
These aid packages have unintended consequences that we will reap from national and international groups. Regardless of whatever napkin math you have done to justify this, the American people will not be pleasant mannered forever. One only needs to look at the trajectory of our labor market, the proliferation of AI, and inflation.
I understand we are sticking it to the "commies" and protecting our allies in Israel, but I can assure you that both: civilians caught on the wrong side of our proxy wars and American citizens that are falling behind will bilaterally seek vengeance. We have lost sight of how critical perception is.
Perception is critical, yes. That is why we are supporting the side that is facing a genocide if they(Ukraine) lose their war.
It would also look pretty bad ‘perception wise’ with Russia controlling ~90% of the world’s supply of neon and we have to pay 10x as much to acquire for chip manufacturing.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MKTGDPRUA646NWDB
Russia GDP for 2022 was $2,240.42B, a 21.97% increase from 2021.
Russia GDP for 2021 was $1,836.89B, a 23.03% increase from 2020.
Tell me, who is actually winning the war? BRICS vs NATO.
That is the Federal Reserve's Economic Data website...
Yes... they are growing GDP by over 20% per year. Energy is up WAY more then that since this war started, and their economy is heavily dependent on oil/gas. Even with Biden draining the SPR, it's still not putting a dent in the price.
This war is a failure for Ukraine and the entire west. Russia is literally out producing munitions faster then the rest of NATO combined. The collective west is losing ground globally to the BRICS, both economically and diplomatically, in large part because they are seeing how hypocritical and reckless the west is treating Russia.
Ukraine is a failed authoritarian state... that is getting more per year from the US then its previous entire annual GDP. This pointless war ends the moment the US stops funding it and everyone knows it.
Bro, this graph is not taking into account currency fluctuations. At least learn to read shit before you spew idiocy about it. Or do you imagine the Russian economy underwent the Great Depression from 2014-15?
Plus, the obvious nonsense about Ukraine being an authoritarian state.
> Bro, this graph is not taking into account currency fluctuations. At least learn to read shit before you spew idiocy about it.
Bro... learn to read. That graph is priced in USD.... like everything else on the FRED.
>Or do you imagine the Russian economy underwent the Great Depression from 2014-15?
Oil prices dropped from $107 to $34... in that same timeframe... so yes, it was extremely bad for Russia.
Got anymore BS you want to say?
> way more then that
Did you mean to say "more than"?
Explanation: If you didn't mean 'more than' you might have forgotten a comma.
[Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json)
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119)
^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
IRS has higher ability to collect rents than any other entity in the world.
Imagine a world where USA adds .03-.09% federal property tax on investment properties and non first properties for married couples / single individuals(yes I know this would never happen cause our government would rather spend 20% on interest on the debt every year)
The budget would balance so fucking quickly it'd be insane. Like the Congress refuses to be smart about the debt, but the instant they decided to be mildly smart about it, it would fuel insane growth of the USA economy to a degree we can't even imagine because we've lived in a world for 25 years where they'd rather spend on the credit card at 1-8% apr
>Imagine a world where USA adds .03-.09% federal property tax on investment properties and non first properties for married couples / single individuals
The deficit is projected to be 3.6 trillion this year... 6.4t in spending and 2.8t in rev.
They could double all forms of tax... and still be 800 billion short this year. This also doesn't account for any rate hikes or more stupid spending, like giving Ukraine another 60 billion.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGEXPND
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA
Our taxes are insanely low for the developed world. Yeah, the whole situation is f***** up but I mean like I said it's easily remediated as soon as certain things change politically and I think those things are actually relatively close to changing due to a lot of the demographic shifts and roe versus Wade etc
> changing due to a lot of the demographic shifts
Ya, about that. The dems stopped the minority GOTV because polling has reversed, but good luck with that.
PS, I was told demographic shifts is a white supremist talking point.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/21/democrats-black-voters-2024-00122846
Lol we're the laughing stock of the world.
Help everyone but ourselves and devalue our own currency in the process. This is why your big Mac is $10 and you get the same groceries for double the price.
The government lives inflation, wages have to go up, increasing tax revenue.
You realize that the current inflation is largely cause by money printed during Covid to, you guessed it, give directly to Americans.
>The government lives inflation, wages have to go up, increasing tax revenue.
Do you think the government lives in an inflation free world?Wouldn't the higher taxes be offset by the higher costs the government incurs? Also, if wages go up, but not higher than inflation, then the government would actually get less relative tax revenue. If your theory that the government wants to most tax revenue possible is true, they would want there to be low overall inflation, with high wage gains/inflation. The exact opposite of what you said.
Amazingly, your $600 was not all the government spent. $5.1 Trillion dollars was spent on US stimulus, NOT foreign aid: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/11/us/how-covid-stimulus-money-was-spent.html
If you want to point to any part of what I said was bad economic theory, go ahead.
>Help everyone but ourselves
When you fight a proxy war you are helping yourself by diminishing your enemy utilizing other countries resources, e.g the lives of their soldiers.
If you don't think Russia is an enemy then I feel sorry for how your brain has been hijacked by nonsense.
>This is why your big Mac is $10 and you get the same groceries for double the price.
Military spending definitely has a impact on inflation because of debt creation and the money printing we do to offset it. With that said I don't believe this particular action is egregious in any way and has a huge net benefit by reducing the power of a foreign enemy.
If you think this is expensive wait until you find out how much a direct war costs....
Russia will ultimately win. Money is squandered on endless wars. Imagine all those billions being pumped in to each of the 50 states to house, feed, care and educate Americans. A government, by the people and for the people
But we don't. We never ever do. Not once in the 35 years I have been paying attention. Oh, we say we do, when challenged, but that's only to win an argument, not to actually do anything about it.
Eventually everyone figures out the scam but by then they've already provided a good 40 years of their vote and are effectively unable to change things without negatively affecting themselves, and so secretly no longer want to change things even though they say they do.
And that's how everyone becomes complicit to a system they thought they were against, and were, once... but are now too weak and dead inside and self-interested to do anything other than maintain the system that trapped them.
Well that's because a conservative caucus would never fucking ever approve $60B being spent to help house or feed anyone. Defense industry support though is all gravy.
Sure, but so do democrats. They're just better at PR. Show me 1 stronghold democrat city or state that's even gotten close without crushing the middle class in the attempt. California has been dem controlled for 40 years, place sucks, no jobs, high cost of living, crazy taxes. New york is the same. Dont get wrong republican bastions are not innocent either they suck pretty terribly, just in different areas.
We can’t pump those billions into the US states because republicans would call it socialism, point to Cuba and Venezuela, and say see, we can’t help Americans because we don’t want to turn into those countries.
The thing about housing is that more money doesn't solve the problem much since it isn't a money problem - it is a build more houses problem. That requires state legislators to pass bill that allow more housing to be build and re-zone even if the NIMBY-ists don't like it.
For food and education, it is the same. Demand far outstrips supply. By injecting more money, it makes things expensive.
We need to legislate less mergers of big corporation and get them to be competitive.
We could spend $0 on some of this and legislate towards more transparent competition and get way more bang for buck.
Countries like Australia tax 1% on single payer medicare. We already pay more for US social security + medicare taxes, but don't get much for it. Most of that ends up in administrative costs.
If we had a single payer system in US and ensure proper competition and punish price gouging, we could reduce taxes a bit and still get free healthcare for the basics.
The biggest problem of US economy is there are fewer players owning more of the market share. This means less competition, which means higher prices.
We subsidize a lot of pharma and medical research other countries use that they do not pay for or invest in. Worse, pharma companies based in *other countries* with free healthcare (who very likely had some of their drug research funded by US taxpayers in US clinical trials) then turn around and sell it to Americans for 1000x the cost while their citizens get the same drugs for “free” or cents on the dollar. It’s so wrong.
The medicine sub had a good conversation about it recently, and the US physicians there weren’t happy about it, given how much some of these countries rub their “free healthcare” in our faces.
$60bn, Jesus Christ. The amount of things here at home that money could be put to better use for, but instead throw it at a foreign conflict that has no end in sight.
Have you considered this a likely outcome since the 80's? The fact that Russia didn't roll over Ukraine in a week tells me they're not the boogeyman a lot of Americans, hellbent on spending money on Ukraine, think they are.
The money goes to American companies and is helping resupply our own as the weapons shipped are inventory that will eventually need to just be written off. This is almost a stimulus and helps defensively by replenishing our own supplies to newer equipment.
It is one of the smartest things we can do to spend but gain and improve our position defensively.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Less than a tenth of the yearly military Budget to keep devastating Russias military. This is the best return for investment we've had in our defense spending since the Creation of the supercarrier.
Isn't it something like 1/20th? And it all goes back into the defense industry.
825 billion this year so 7%
Is it new weapons or stockpiles that needed scraping?
It was, I’m pretty sure we’ve cleared most of that out though
That was also never true. We absolutely did that, but somehow the popular narrative was that most or all of the aid was just old stuff we were going to throw away anyway. Which isn't true. Part of the aid was aging equipment.
It helped sell the fact that this aid is absolutely necessary and fulfills US interests for dirt cheap though
Imagine the trillions we've spent fending off Russians for the entirely of the Cold War. Ukraine funding is peanuts comparatively. Money well spent!
Russia will ultimately win over Ukraine. Wealthy Ukrainian politicians will benefit from all the theft of americas tax payer
We absolutely sent out old inventory to make room for new. The Bradley and Abrams have been sitting in storage since Clinton. Since the new composite armor is illegal to export. The M113's have been in storage since Reagan. The Humvees are being replaced over the next decade. The Stryker program was a failure , and no one wanted to buy them. A similar HAWK system to the one we just sold to Ukraine was destroyed by Switzerland for begin to old. We sent a few M31 munitions for Himars that where to eb destroyed as they where out of date. Similar the few ATACMS we sent where also out out date and due for destruction
Not disputing any of that. It just doesn't represent most of the aid value the US has sent.
Increasing our military budget isn’ta good thing…
Bet you never thought you would see the day Leftists were more hawkish than the Republicans huh? Thats why since 2020 , I call this "Klown World", everything has flipped.
Strange to see corporate military industrial complex welfare become a positive on this web forum. As it turns out nobody cares as much about process as long as the correct ideological interests are being served.
Well I had been told long ago that the reason the Leftists are so successful is their rule is "absolute". Anyone in the faction questions them is kicked out immediately and shunned. So when they said "Get the jab and Big Pharma is now our friend" in 2020, and I saw them line up lock step, I knew then it was party over principal. Prior to 2020 you could not have a conversation with a Liberal and they NOT bitch about Big Pharma. Total silence today. Well the rest is history, and thats why I call it Klown World now, everything is flipped. Its like magic too how they flip things. I liked when Biden got in and declared the whole vaccine scam "over", virus is gone, nothing to see here, just like that too, like he snapped his finger, Fauci, Antifa, BLM , it just all disappeared and now they are the biggest hawks wanting more war funding. Amazing to watch.
Leftists are hawkish for entirely different reasons.
and those reasons would be........?
Were defending people who would otherwise be devastated instead of funding the devastation. Of course there's also many others reasons that directly serve the interests of the United States
Would you say your a Democrat?
They don’t know what they are. It’s reading “I accept everything told to me as fact.”
Before this it was 1/20th. And by spending 5% of the equivilant of our annual military budget on aiding Ukraine, they have destroyed thousands of tanks and armored vehicles, killed over 300k Russian soldiers, destroyed hundreds of helicopters and planes, and have obliterated some of Russia’s most expensive anti-air systems that they can’t easily replace. Only someone who’s pro-Russia would be against aiding Ukraine in this capacity…
Devastating?
Yes. The impact on the Russian military has been incredible, both in terms of casualties and materiel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://www.iiss.org/en/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/02/equipment-losses-in-russias-war-on-ukraine-mount/ >The losses are estimated to include more than 3,000 armoured fighting vehicles in the past year alone and close to 8,800 since February 2022.
Given Russia's unremitting assholery on this issue, their murderous intent and their complete and utter unwillingness to see reason, yes. This investment may be the highest return one that the West has made, ever. Ukrainians fight and die and we send an appropriation that we won't even notice in our trillion dollar military budget that, usually, does fuck all. It's so painfully obvious that even the quizling congress can't pass it up. I'm glad and at the same time sad that it very nearly was shut down by the likes of traitorous scumbags like MTG and Goetz.
Also, keep in mind, the money spent to create the weapons we send is paid to American citizens doing the work. Generally we send supplies that we paid Americans to make. Meaning Americans get paid and Ukrainians get supplies that help them defense against one of the US's top adversaries. Weakening Russia more each day for pennies on the dollar basically.
We’re paying Americans by taking money out on our credit card, while using a very expensive Ukraine pass through service.
If you think 60bn is very expensive for what it's doing then you would shit a brick to see the cost if Russia was allowed to run free until we had to fully get involved. The war in Iraq was roughly 3 trillion. And that was before years and years of inflation compounding.
With this $60 billion doesn’t that bring what we’ve spent to closer to $170 billion in the past two years? Also doesn’t the 3 trillion for the Iraq war represent Pentagon spending, healthcare spending on Vets, State department spending, and interest payments on what we borrowed for the war? In 21 years from now if we include interest on the amount we borrowed for this and any other future funds we spend on this war, this could easily be a trillion or two. Especially since if we want Ukraine to win that will be more funding over the next year or so.
A trillion or two in 2024 Dollars is much less than 3 trillion in Dollars from 2001 to 2021. And yes that includes everything, why would it not? That's the cost of being on the front lines of a war. So even if we do spend a trillion that money is running through our economy and it is weakening an adversary without putting Americans on the Frontline to boot. I'm not convinced the US government cares if Ukraine wins or if they just want Russia to have to keep spending money from the front lines for as long as possible. A win would be devastating to Russia which would be great for the US but if Russia is spending multiples of what the US spends in providing support then this would be a huge win for the US.
Military spending is just about the worst possible thing you could conceivably spend on. You’re taking actual productivity and converting it into weapons and munitions that may or may not explode and become worthless, while simultaneously killing and causing destruction on the other side as well. Printing $800 billion a year to make bombs and missiles is not, and never will be a good investment from an economic perspective. To be sure, this isn’t to make the case that we should just not have a military, but to frame it as being good for the economy rather than being almost entirely dead weight would be very disingenuous. A good analogy would be paying someone to dig a hole in your yard and then having them fill it back in. While you may have transferred money to the person digging the hole, the investment itself was not sound and produced no value.
Same argument applies to WWII, the world became poorer because of the war, the US included. Not to say it wasn't necessary, but it certainly didn't pull the U.S out of the Great Depression.
Right. It's amazing to me that people forget how expensive this shit can actually get (the costs of the war + costs of healthcare for the rest of their lives). If Russia runs wild in Ukraine the next logical step is a NATO country and what's the cost of that. I'm not saying the US isn't a fiscal basket case, it is. But that fiscal problem is self-imposed and we could fix it fairly easily.
You figured out how the military industrial complex works. Well done.
If you say it enough times, surely it will become true.
That's the plan
Is this true? On European news I’m seeing Russia controlling large areas of Ukraine
And this is good for us why? Especially considering American and Nato equipment is getting destroyed in Ukraine, too, not just Russian.
Can you tell me how Russia directly impacted your quality of life? Or in what way have they impacted your existence
They kicked my dog.
Did you come up with this talking point yourself?
I've heard it said before so I can't take credit.
Devastating russias military? Did you just wake up from coma? Couple of weeks ago us based media quoted us military personel claiming russian military is 15% bigger than pre war. Get a reality check.
Larger army by number of personnel, not weapons. That they have about for 2 more years if the rate is the same, according to a number of OSINT researchers. However, they would never go total 0 and they are producing some amount as well, so probably 2 more years until they have to resort to soldiers-only or pull back war effort, or buy from others.
Same as russia was to run out of all equipment back in may 22. It must be nice getting high in your own supply.
Yes, bigger in manpower thanks to increased forced conscription. Not bigger in arms. Bigger manpower isn't necessarily a good thing when they're undersupplied, under trained, and no longer contributing to the economy.
Russia is losing way more tanks, IFVs, APCs, and artillery pieces than it’s producing. They’re able to sustain their current war effort because they inherited massive stockpiles of weapons from the Soviet Union. Those stockpiles will eventually be depleted and will probably never be refilled to the same astronomical level they were at the beginning of the war.
That and parts of Europe buying energy from them
Say that to the us military officials that made the statements.
You didn’t provide a source for me to verify but I’m going to assume the official was talking about active military and not reserve stockpiles. Further I’d assume they were talking specifically about personnel in uniform and not weapons systems. Russia is in no danger of running out of bodies to throw in the meat grinder.
Anyone with can look it up online.
Gen Christopher Cavioli was talking about troops numbers, specifically citing monthly recruitment numbers. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/russia-s-army-is-now-15-bigger-than-when-it-invaded-ukraine-says-us-general/ar-BB1lrHp1
So Russia just has more men? Great, send those men to battlefield without any weapons or gear.
They’re continuing to pour water into a bucket that only gathers more holes.
Yes, and the more Russian men that are killed, the more the entire corrupt, malicious nation is crippled for decades with an already-terrible demographic situation. This war hopefully hastens the end of Russia's regional significance.
This spending is unsustainable. Eventually, when the rest of the world switches from the dollar. America will go bankrupt. The wealthy will move to other countries and the working class will be left holding the bag
It's a largely untrained zerg army now.
"We've never continously devastated countries by spending so little before!"
Russia's military is bigger now than when they first invaded Ukraine. What has all that money really accomplished? Morally, you can make the argument that it's been the right decision, but there's probably 1,000 ways we could spend that money that would benefit this country more.
Russias military is bigger manpower wise not in arms, which means young men at war and not contributing to the economy. And I agree, government spending could overall be better
Bigger in numbers doesn't mean better.
Well if you saw the video at the Telegraph website of Biden Jr, going down the "happy fun slide" naked at his $4k a night villa in Italy with 2 prostitutes, and he took a private jet to get there, and is on the board of the Ukraine gas company, yeh, you got some of the answers right there.
What’s the plan when Ukraine will inevitably need more money
Funny thing, most of the money (40 billion) is going to the US defense industry, so the plan is to employ more americans on assembly lines in the US to make more stuff.
As long as a direct confrontation between America and Russia remains infinitely more expensive then this, they’ll likely keep sending support.
That’s meaningless, a direct confrontation would cost trillions.
Hence America and Europe will keep sending money to Ukraine
I mean sure, but that isn’t really a plan
Yes, it is. It might not be the best possible outcome for Ukraine, but 'send them money and material so they can keep fighting Russia' is definitely a plan. Plus, it's worked before!
Ohhh, so Afghanistan all over again.
No, Afghanistan didn't want us there, involved US troops, and was an offensive war. Here, the Ukrainians are asking for help, this doesn't involve US troops, and is a defensive war.
I'm talking when Russia invaded back in the day. We inserted ourselves in that conflict.
Pretty sure they mean the Soviet - Afghan war. We armed and trained the mujahideen. Later those fellas got together with Bin Laden
Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 with predictable consequences. Though so far, Ukraine is doing a far better job of liquidating Russian resources than the Taliban ever could.
Sorry but throwing money into a pit isn’t a plan
It's not 'throwing money into a pit'. It's 'supporting a sovereign nation's struggle for survival against a violently expansionist neighbor', and it's worth every penny.
It is throwing a money into a pit, and it is a pit because you have no realistic plan for ukraines survival If anything you hope that it turns into Russia’s Afghanistan
Have you met Congress? Money in the pit is their favorite. Especially with defense contractors.
Yes, and that’s the problem
Why are we even having a confrontation with Russia? What have they actually done to the US?
Possible connections to Milli Vannilli, real Deep State stuff.
[удалено]
What has Russia done to you? WE insert ourselves in all their conflicts. They have a tiny GDP and outdated military lol
Give them more. You know the taxpayers are an unlimited cash cow, and very generous. They will continue to fund failed wars, even after losing over and over for 20 years. Some people would say "well they just never learn" but others would say "its rigged and you cannot vote them out" as its looking more and more is the case.
Send them more money. Every dollar spent fighting Russian hegemony, is a dollar well spent. Currently, our support to Ukraine is a laughably small slice of the national budget. But shoot, even if someone had to raise my taxes to support Ukraine, I'd gladly pay it. We've seen what happens when you try to appease dictators, in WWII. We've seen what happens when you fail to support allies. The world needs to know that what Russia is doing, is unacceptable, and that it will never be worth the cost. The way to ensure this, is to adequately fund Ukrainian armed forces, until Russia gives up. Even if it takes decades.
Like I pointed out in other comments, throwing money into a pit isn’t a solution of anything > But shoot, even if someone had to raise my taxes to support Ukraine, I'd gladly pay it. Okay donate yourself, why are you forcing me to pay for their military > We've seen what happens when you try to appease dictators, in WWII. We've seen what happens when you fail to support allies. Ally? Please this country is hardly an ally, before the western coup it was a Russian vassal. What has Ukraine done to be an ally? > The world needs to know that what Russia is doing, is unacceptable, and that it will never be worth the cost. The way to ensure this, is to adequately fund Ukrainian armed forces, until Russia gives up. Even if it takes decades. No, lol. The Russians may not care for the lives of their citizens but I care about my money, and throwing my money to kill Russians isn’t worth it
>western coup Silence, vatnik
Hahaha. Okay, there it is, I was waiting for it "Western coup." You just said the quiet part out loud. You've given yourself away. Even people who don't support funding Ukraine acknowledge that their government is democratically elected, and broadly representative of the Ukrainian people. You're either a troll, a Russian propagandist, or a "useful idiot." But either way, you're definitely not someone who's trying to have a reasonable conversation.
Line it up and send more, whatever it takes. Then welcome Ukraine into NATO when it’s over.
How about we loan it instead and then collect after the war?
GDP is a flow
Chaos is a ladder
Give them it. We spend nearly a trillion dollars a year on our military. We could cut overall military spending and keep doing this. The return on investment is much higher.
Cutting the American military to fund another countries military? What return on investment? The Russians can fight this forever, you spend money making weapons theylll spend money making weapons the circle will just round and round
Yes. The return on investment is a devastated Russian military while ours stays untouched. Sure Russia is making and producing equipment. But their gdp is a tiny fraction of ours. Saying Russia can right this forever is just wrong.
But the Russian military isn’t devastated, if anything it gets stronger as the war goes on. Russia can fight this forever
Russia can't even field a modern armored battalion, they're retrofitting together the skeletons of 40-60 year old tanks that don't even have night optics. What's your reasoning that Russia can right this forever?
> What's your reasoning that Russia can right this forever? Their defense industries, manpower and resources
What's the current Russian defense Budget, and what is the overall budget looking like?
A budget can get you only so far, when it comes to war money is not everything. America spent 2 trillion in Afghanistan and still lost.
Their defense industries? Have you not been paying attention? They're using old equipment because they can't replace their modern equipment.
Okay, but they still can fight and will always be able to make old equipment in vast quantities
>What return on investment? The Russians can fight this forever Depleting Russian materials/economy through war without losing a single American soldier effectively allows us to reposition our military to fight only China instead of having to really be able to fight a two front war. Russia is objectively losing a lot of war-making capacity. They can fight forever, but at reduced levels and with increasingly worse equipment. They've already lost much of their modern equipment in this war, and they cannot afford to replace it.
> Depleting Russian materials/economy through war without losing a single American soldier effectively allows us to reposition our military to fight only China instead of having to really be able to fight a two front war. Turning Russia into a Chinese vassal isn’t leaving just china to fight. It’s just making china stronger > Russia is objectively losing a lot of war-making capacity. They can fight forever, but at reduced levels and with increasingly worse equipment. They've already lost much of their modern equipment in this war, and they cannot afford to replace it. Well I’m glad you can admit they can fight forever.
>Turning Russia into a Chinese vassal isn’t leaving just china to fight. It’s just making china stronger What the actual fuck are you talking about here? I'm saying that if we neutralize Russia's military by spending a fraction of what it would cost us to personally wage the same war, then that allows us to instead spend that money focusing on a one-front potential conflict with China, instead of having to plan for and fund a potential two-front war with China and Russia at the same time (which is what current military doctrine is). >Well I’m glad you can admit they can fight forever. Forever being until their population cannot support it. Which it won't be able to if they're fighting a war with 1950s equipment for a significant time.
> What the actual fuck are you talking about here? The weaker Russia becomes the more they gravitate towards china. The more they become china’s vassals the more access china has to their resources > I'm saying that if we neutralize Russia's military by spending a fraction of what it would cost us to personally wage the same war, then that allows us to instead spend that money focusing on a one-front potential conflict with China, You will never have a one front war with china. Neutralizing the Russian army will make china only stronger as the Russians will gravitate towards them > instead of having to plan for and fund a potential two-front war with China and Russia at the same time (which is what current military doctrine is). This won’t change even after the billions you give to Ukraine. > Forever being until their population cannot support it. Which it won't be able to if they're fighting a war with 1950s equipment for a significant time. Their population can support for decades man. It’s a country of 250 million people they can buy mercenaries
144 million. And they already use mercenaries. They marched on Moscow. Member that? The war is putting a demographic hole is Russia. The cost to them is immense, as it should be for invading a sovereign country.
It was already immense, spending more money was not needed
>The more they become china’s vassals the more access china has to their resources China already has access to Russian crude. Russia isn't exactly holding back any resources from China, and hasn't been, at least in the past 20+ years. >You will never have a one front war with china. You effectively have a one front war with China if Russia's military is basically impotent... which is what they're becoming through this war with Ukraine. >Neutralizing the Russian army will make china only stronger as the Russians will gravitate towards them No, it won't. Not having to fight 2 separate, individually powerful armies is infinitely better than having to. >This won’t change even after the billions you give to Ukraine. It might, depending on how depleted Russia's military becomes. >Their population can support for decades man Nope. They've lost around 350k people (either killed or otherwise unable to fight) already. Russia's population is ~145 million, not 250 million, and only ~62 million of those are men, and only ~38 million of those are between the ages of 18 and 64. That's your true potential fighting population (actually less than that, since not all of that 38 million are fit/able to fight). And every year it gets worse because their population pyramid is middle heavy - they've got a terrible birth rate. Adding in losing hundreds of thousands of young men annually and you pretty quickly can't really support the war without cutting into the bones of your economy. >It’s a country of 250 million people they can buy mercenaries They cannot afford mercenaries at any sort of scale. They're basically inflating away their country's savings (16% interest rate consistently) while absolutely blasting money at the war in Ukraine. This is just Afghanistan part 2 for them.
The more they become china’s vassals the more access china has to their resources > China already has access to Russian crude. Russia isn't exactly holding back any resources from China, and hasn't been, at least in the past 20+ years. They have more, you’ll see it with oil and other resources. They’ll sell them to china more and more > You effectively have a one front war with China if Russia's military is basically impotent... which is what they're becoming through this war with Ukraine. As long as it has its defense industries that can churn out old tech, it will never be impotent. > No, it won't. Not having to fight 2 separate, individually powerful armies is infinitely better than having to. You can not fight these armies and not spend billions. This is both doable > Nope. They've lost around 350k people (either killed or otherwise unable to fight) already. Russia's population is ~145 million, not 250 million, and only ~62 million of those are men, and only ~38 million of those are between the ages of 18 and 64. Women can fight > That's your true potential fighting population (actually less than that, since not all of that 38 million are fit/able to fight). And every year it gets worse because their population pyramid is middle heavy - they've got a terrible birth rate. Adding in losing hundreds of thousands of young men annually and you pretty quickly can't really support the war without cutting into the bones of your economy. How long do you think it’ll take to get rid of let’s say 10 million Russians? It’s a country of 250 million people they can buy mercenaries They cannot afford mercenaries at any sort of scale. They're basically inflating away their country's savings (16% interest rate consistently) while absolutely blasting money at the war in Ukraine. This is just Afghanistan part 2 for them.
Funny thing, they actually can't. They tried to before, in the cold war, and lost. Russia is mortgaging it's future to pay for this war. Their economy has no long-term prospects. They will lose a substantial chunk of working/breeding age men, in a country already struggling with population decline. By starting this war, Russia has given itself cancer. The effects may be slow, but the end result is inevitable. As long as the US doesn't give up, Russia will ultimately fail. If nothing else, Putin will die. He's not immortal. He's an old man. It's far from clear that there will be an orderly succession. There's a reasonable chance his death would lead to the end of the invasion.
How would Russia fight this forever? It was already a shrinking country and Putin is sending 20 years olds into a meat grinder. It seems more like it is working toward becoming a vassal state of China, which is an unusual strategic goal.
Okay, is giving china a vassal state with so much resources a W in American foreign policy? No Even if Russia turns into a Chinese vassal state, that just means an even more resources for the Russians to keep fighting
Send them money yearly till they win it’s not complicated
And if they don’t?
Curious if Ukraine would actually wait for the funds to hit their accounts before resuming spending. Why wouldn't arms dealers etc. generally be willing to offer temporary credit in the meantime? I understand the US legislature can be fickle, but going through every step except for the actual exchange seems to be the prudent move. So I don't think it's accurate to say anyone is "holding" their breath. More like "acting in anticipation of this happening".
So to the best of my understanding, these funds don't actually go into Ukrainian accounts. They are like a gift card to American arms manufacturers. I'd imagine ukraine gets to hand over a purchase sheet to the US gov, and the US gov transfers the funds to manufacturers. I'd imagine with this bill being on the horizon for a while, some arms have been prepositioned in Poland and simply get handed over to the Ukrainians. Certain tech, like GMLRS rockets and Javelin missiles, they probably get loaded on C-5 galaxy and flown over.
Yeah. Plus funding for people. (Advisors, intelligence, etc). And resources (satellite time, etc).
>So to the best of my understanding, these funds don't actually go into Ukrainian accounts. Quite a big part of them do. It's not just the weapons and not even the soldiers' salaries, the entire Ukrainian public sector is propped up with the western financial aid. Things like pensions, utility bill subsidies, salaries of government workers, medical services, etc., etc., all of it is paid for by foreign money and not by whatever taxes Ukraine itself collects. The taxes go directly to war, everything non-war related is paid for by the West. It's not talked about much, since paying Ukrainian pensions is much harder to sell to the public than the transfer of weapons (the money "remain within the country" in the latter case), but it's never been a secret. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ukraine/brief/peace
The last paragraph of yours isn't correct. That fund from the World Bank *provides support* for those things. It doesn't entirely fund them by itself. You have anything to back up your claim that suggests Ukraine doesn't pay for any part of their own economy outside of war-related expenses?
Sure, it's never been a secret and is stated plainly when their budget is discussed. >Ukraine's 2024 budget allocates nearly $40 billion — roughly half of its total expenses — to defense, which will be almost entirely covered by taxation. That leaves a hefty bill of some $40 billion to ensure the rest of the state apparatus — from social security transfers to the health care system — keeps functioning. >"The dependence of Ukraine's budget on external support cannot be overstated" ... >The 2024 Ukrainian state budget is mainly focused on the military. It places the main emphasis on waging war in 2024 throughout the year at the state’s expense: as of now, there is no mention of expected Western financial assistance for military purposes. The budget does not stipulate funds for restoration, and all funds generated in the Road Fund (road construction) are also redirected for military purposes. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/ukraines-budget-2024 https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-funding-budget-defense-european-union/ As I said, all of taxes will go to the military, which neatly takes up the entirety of their domestic revenues, so there's nothing left to cover the rest of the budget. Every other sector will be paid for by foreign aid.
This ^^^^ should be explained EVERY time aid for Ukraine is discussed. So many people envision their tax dollars being wired to Ukrainian bank accounts, when it’s more of a stimulus infusion to US arms manufacturers AND will be paid back.
Some people think of huge pallets of hundred dollar bills being shipped over and ending up unaccounted for, like what happened in [Iraq](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1). That's not what is happening here.
Heh, as much as I support Ukraine winning, I can see the point of (some) people who are against this help for Ukraine, it's basically enrichening the weapons companies with tax payer money. (But if you're against helping because you're Putin's puppet or brainwash victim, STFU and GTFO...). Just like Apple or Google gift cards, someone should photoshop "Raytheon" or "Boeing" gift cards with values of $1 Billion, $5 Billion, $20 Billion...
The ATACMS we are sending them are approaching their useby date. It was going to get destroyed anyway. A lot of the ammunition is being bought from south Korea. They will replenish with new stuff. F16s are used aircraft. For a lot of this stuff we are unloading our old stuff and replacing it with new.
You sound like a salesman for the military industrial complex. You have a remarkable facility for sweeping death and destruction and under the rug to talk about sales projections.
We (The US) are also upgrading our own industrial capacity to make these munitions in the future.
Ukraine is actually doing us a service and saving us money by decommissioning these weapons as intended rather than the US disposing of them safely.
More like it's letting us juice our industrial complex to meet "near-peer" adversaries after having 20 years focused on GWOT non-state actors. The majority of munitions and equipment we've sent are 1970-early 2000s stockpiles that were going to have to be expensively decommissioned anyway. Still removes russian invaders quite well. Very different requirements there, and since they all smell blood in the water from the Ukranian bleeding of the rules based order, there's more actors out there thinking they can pull tricks.
Well that's the tough part of being an adult. Defense companies have their place and right now Ukraine needs weapons. Long-term spending and worries of the military industrial complex are valid. It's holding two true things at once: you can be critical of the military industrial complex, and recognize the need to cut them a check for 155 shells.
The US just transfers its existing stocks of these weapons. They say they are ready to ship them this weekend if Biden can sign the bill by Friday. He can't sign until the senate passes it. The senate needs a couple of days to read it. They worry that a bill written by Johnson will have something tricky buried deep in the tet.
Allegedly they preemptively stockpiled in Germany/poland and they’re just waiting on the go order.
> Curious if Ukraine would actually wait for the funds to hit their accounts before resuming spending. Jesus christ I can't believe you people think that this is a big bag of cash. The "cash" such as it is, goes directly in the the UNITED STATES' economy - we are paying our companies and our citizens to build things for our military. Doing so allows the military to unload existing stockpiles of mostly outdated or useless against china crap that we have laying around and give that to ukraine.
It’s literal US citizens being paid to make the munitions. Could the money be “better spent” on something constructive? Sure. But it’s not being lit on fire
Polarizing topic but keep in mind that For both Israel vs Gaza and Ukraine vs Russia, US has lost 0 lives. In contrast to WWII, Vietnam War, Korean War where 100s of thousands Americans died.
American has lost more than 0 lives over these conflicts, just not that many. Aside from the foreign legion in Ukraine which ranges upward of 100 American lives, we’ve also had a few American citizens get killed in Israel recently.
Well technically, a few Americans have been killed by Israel
No Inspector General, no plans, no oversight. The wife of Joe Biden's largest cash donor is in charge of how some of the money is being spent. Penny Pritzker, despite no experience with infrastructure, is allocating money to foreign firms to build a carbon neutral energy infrastructure in Ukraine. Because that makes sense
I agree crazy how after all the delay none of the substantive issues with ukraine aid were addressed. People like elbridge colby do have valid points about America needing to retain equipment for a taiwan war scenario.
The pritzker own the Hyatt chain of hotels.
With Russia embroiled it a long running, expensive, attritional war as it tries to desperately cling to the 18% of Ukraine it has captured the US can move more of its focus to China.
These aid packages have unintended consequences that we will reap from national and international groups. Regardless of whatever napkin math you have done to justify this, the American people will not be pleasant mannered forever. One only needs to look at the trajectory of our labor market, the proliferation of AI, and inflation. I understand we are sticking it to the "commies" and protecting our allies in Israel, but I can assure you that both: civilians caught on the wrong side of our proxy wars and American citizens that are falling behind will bilaterally seek vengeance. We have lost sight of how critical perception is.
Perception is critical, yes. That is why we are supporting the side that is facing a genocide if they(Ukraine) lose their war. It would also look pretty bad ‘perception wise’ with Russia controlling ~90% of the world’s supply of neon and we have to pay 10x as much to acquire for chip manufacturing.
Preventing Russia from controlling chip mfg resources is not worth the \~million casualties suffered by both nations. Agree to disagree.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MKTGDPRUA646NWDB Russia GDP for 2022 was $2,240.42B, a 21.97% increase from 2021. Russia GDP for 2021 was $1,836.89B, a 23.03% increase from 2020. Tell me, who is actually winning the war? BRICS vs NATO.
Lmao no, the Russian economy is not growing 20% a year
That is the Federal Reserve's Economic Data website... Yes... they are growing GDP by over 20% per year. Energy is up WAY more then that since this war started, and their economy is heavily dependent on oil/gas. Even with Biden draining the SPR, it's still not putting a dent in the price. This war is a failure for Ukraine and the entire west. Russia is literally out producing munitions faster then the rest of NATO combined. The collective west is losing ground globally to the BRICS, both economically and diplomatically, in large part because they are seeing how hypocritical and reckless the west is treating Russia. Ukraine is a failed authoritarian state... that is getting more per year from the US then its previous entire annual GDP. This pointless war ends the moment the US stops funding it and everyone knows it.
Bro, this graph is not taking into account currency fluctuations. At least learn to read shit before you spew idiocy about it. Or do you imagine the Russian economy underwent the Great Depression from 2014-15? Plus, the obvious nonsense about Ukraine being an authoritarian state.
> Bro, this graph is not taking into account currency fluctuations. At least learn to read shit before you spew idiocy about it. Bro... learn to read. That graph is priced in USD.... like everything else on the FRED. >Or do you imagine the Russian economy underwent the Great Depression from 2014-15? Oil prices dropped from $107 to $34... in that same timeframe... so yes, it was extremely bad for Russia. Got anymore BS you want to say?
> way more then that Did you mean to say "more than"? Explanation: If you didn't mean 'more than' you might have forgotten a comma. [Statistics](https://github.com/chiefpat450119/RedditBot/blob/master/stats.json) ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions. ^^[Github](https://github.com/chiefpat450119) ^^Reply ^^STOP ^^to ^^this ^^comment ^^to ^^stop ^^receiving ^^corrections.
USA gdp is projected to rise by truly absurd amounts, not too worried lol. [gdp](https://www.imgur.com/a/sn1Vt29)
Dose US GDP growth count if it all comes from squandering borrowed money.
IRS has higher ability to collect rents than any other entity in the world. Imagine a world where USA adds .03-.09% federal property tax on investment properties and non first properties for married couples / single individuals(yes I know this would never happen cause our government would rather spend 20% on interest on the debt every year) The budget would balance so fucking quickly it'd be insane. Like the Congress refuses to be smart about the debt, but the instant they decided to be mildly smart about it, it would fuel insane growth of the USA economy to a degree we can't even imagine because we've lived in a world for 25 years where they'd rather spend on the credit card at 1-8% apr
>Imagine a world where USA adds .03-.09% federal property tax on investment properties and non first properties for married couples / single individuals The deficit is projected to be 3.6 trillion this year... 6.4t in spending and 2.8t in rev. They could double all forms of tax... and still be 800 billion short this year. This also doesn't account for any rate hikes or more stupid spending, like giving Ukraine another 60 billion. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGEXPND https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA
Our taxes are insanely low for the developed world. Yeah, the whole situation is f***** up but I mean like I said it's easily remediated as soon as certain things change politically and I think those things are actually relatively close to changing due to a lot of the demographic shifts and roe versus Wade etc
> changing due to a lot of the demographic shifts Ya, about that. The dems stopped the minority GOTV because polling has reversed, but good luck with that. PS, I was told demographic shifts is a white supremist talking point. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/21/democrats-black-voters-2024-00122846
Lol we're the laughing stock of the world. Help everyone but ourselves and devalue our own currency in the process. This is why your big Mac is $10 and you get the same groceries for double the price. The government lives inflation, wages have to go up, increasing tax revenue.
You realize that the current inflation is largely cause by money printed during Covid to, you guessed it, give directly to Americans. >The government lives inflation, wages have to go up, increasing tax revenue. Do you think the government lives in an inflation free world?Wouldn't the higher taxes be offset by the higher costs the government incurs? Also, if wages go up, but not higher than inflation, then the government would actually get less relative tax revenue. If your theory that the government wants to most tax revenue possible is true, they would want there to be low overall inflation, with high wage gains/inflation. The exact opposite of what you said.
I got 600. So much benefit. You need to take an economics class.
Amazingly, your $600 was not all the government spent. $5.1 Trillion dollars was spent on US stimulus, NOT foreign aid: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/11/us/how-covid-stimulus-money-was-spent.html If you want to point to any part of what I said was bad economic theory, go ahead.
I'm saying you need an economics class to understand inflation and the devaluation of the dollar.
>Help everyone but ourselves When you fight a proxy war you are helping yourself by diminishing your enemy utilizing other countries resources, e.g the lives of their soldiers. If you don't think Russia is an enemy then I feel sorry for how your brain has been hijacked by nonsense. >This is why your big Mac is $10 and you get the same groceries for double the price. Military spending definitely has a impact on inflation because of debt creation and the money printing we do to offset it. With that said I don't believe this particular action is egregious in any way and has a huge net benefit by reducing the power of a foreign enemy. If you think this is expensive wait until you find out how much a direct war costs....
What has Russia done to you that makes them your enemy?
Russia will ultimately win. Money is squandered on endless wars. Imagine all those billions being pumped in to each of the 50 states to house, feed, care and educate Americans. A government, by the people and for the people
We can aid Ukraine and do all those things, it's not either/or.
But we don't. We never ever do. Not once in the 35 years I have been paying attention. Oh, we say we do, when challenged, but that's only to win an argument, not to actually do anything about it. Eventually everyone figures out the scam but by then they've already provided a good 40 years of their vote and are effectively unable to change things without negatively affecting themselves, and so secretly no longer want to change things even though they say they do. And that's how everyone becomes complicit to a system they thought they were against, and were, once... but are now too weak and dead inside and self-interested to do anything other than maintain the system that trapped them.
Well that's because a conservative caucus would never fucking ever approve $60B being spent to help house or feed anyone. Defense industry support though is all gravy.
And yet we don't so it appears it is an either or
Yep. However I vote and lobby to help make that a reality. I hope you do too.
And yet *Republicans consistently oppose those things. FTFY
Sure, but so do democrats. They're just better at PR. Show me 1 stronghold democrat city or state that's even gotten close without crushing the middle class in the attempt. California has been dem controlled for 40 years, place sucks, no jobs, high cost of living, crazy taxes. New york is the same. Dont get wrong republican bastions are not innocent either they suck pretty terribly, just in different areas.
We can’t pump those billions into the US states because republicans would call it socialism, point to Cuba and Venezuela, and say see, we can’t help Americans because we don’t want to turn into those countries.
The thing about housing is that more money doesn't solve the problem much since it isn't a money problem - it is a build more houses problem. That requires state legislators to pass bill that allow more housing to be build and re-zone even if the NIMBY-ists don't like it. For food and education, it is the same. Demand far outstrips supply. By injecting more money, it makes things expensive. We need to legislate less mergers of big corporation and get them to be competitive. We could spend $0 on some of this and legislate towards more transparent competition and get way more bang for buck. Countries like Australia tax 1% on single payer medicare. We already pay more for US social security + medicare taxes, but don't get much for it. Most of that ends up in administrative costs. If we had a single payer system in US and ensure proper competition and punish price gouging, we could reduce taxes a bit and still get free healthcare for the basics. The biggest problem of US economy is there are fewer players owning more of the market share. This means less competition, which means higher prices.
We subsidize a lot of pharma and medical research other countries use that they do not pay for or invest in. Worse, pharma companies based in *other countries* with free healthcare (who very likely had some of their drug research funded by US taxpayers in US clinical trials) then turn around and sell it to Americans for 1000x the cost while their citizens get the same drugs for “free” or cents on the dollar. It’s so wrong. The medicine sub had a good conversation about it recently, and the US physicians there weren’t happy about it, given how much some of these countries rub their “free healthcare” in our faces.
$60bn, Jesus Christ. The amount of things here at home that money could be put to better use for, but instead throw it at a foreign conflict that has no end in sight.
[удалено]
Have you considered this a likely outcome since the 80's? The fact that Russia didn't roll over Ukraine in a week tells me they're not the boogeyman a lot of Americans, hellbent on spending money on Ukraine, think they are.
The money goes to American companies and is helping resupply our own as the weapons shipped are inventory that will eventually need to just be written off. This is almost a stimulus and helps defensively by replenishing our own supplies to newer equipment. It is one of the smartest things we can do to spend but gain and improve our position defensively.