Europe under extreme duress

[jmcquate]

Bottom line, the weapon systems we are sending to Ukraine are doing what they were designed, procured, and produced for. Kill Russians, and break Russian stuff. Without killings NATO troops, we are near , or at making the Russian military an ineffective conventional force.

Rob. I agree, any cash sent to Ukraine needs to be accounted for. But these are two pots of money. Outdated weapons, and cash.

 

[robav8r]

I think the fact that this isn't "All of the money..." is a big sticking point for a lot of people. The article below is a little dated (Sep 2023) but some of the expenditures raise some eyebrows.

In Ukraine, U.S. tax dollars are funding more than just military aid

America has provided more than $70 billion in aid to Ukraine. The money has not just gone to the military, but also to help farmers, small businesses and first responders.

www.cbsnews.com

Things I don't personally think further the national security interests of the US:

1. "The U.S. government is subsidizing small businesses in Ukraine..."

2. "The U.S. government has also bought seeds and fertilizer for Ukrainian farmers."

3. "America is covering the salaries of Ukraine's first responders, all 57,000 of them."

4. "The U.S. funds divers who clear unexploded ammunition from the country's rivers to make them safe again for swimming and fishing."

Combine stuff like this with a historically corrupt government (also discussed in the article) and a myriad of domestic issues that could be solved by this money, and it's not hard to see where the growing national fatigue is coming from.

Exactly. And certain peoples love affair with MMT aside, payments to satisfy interest on the national debt exceeding our defense budget seems a bit absurd, doesn't it?

 

[robav8r]

Bottom line, the weapon systems we are sending to Ukraine are doing what they were designed, procured, and produced for. Kill Russians, and break Russian stuff. Without killings NATO troops, we are near , or at making the Russian military an ineffective conventional force.

Rob. I agree, any cash sent to Ukraine needs to be accounted for. But these are two pots of money. Outdated weapons, and cash.

Understand - but how about a little better explanation from of the likes of John Kirby (I won't touch Karine Jean-Pierre) ??? I mean FFS, my political leanings are not a secret, but the administration could do a LOT more to help their cause in this regard, you know?

 

[Mirage]

The vast majority of the money being appropriated in the Ukraine foreign aid bills and related actions stays in the US. That money is going to the US DIB (or whatever we’re supposed to call it now) to replace what’s being taken out of war stocks and sent forward. Most of the rest is going to NATO countries to replace what’s coming out of *their* war stocks. Very little US taxpayer cash money actually goes to the Ukrainians directly.

The active military needs to be extremely cautious about trying to influence public opinion when it comes to foreign policy, That should stay within the purview of elected officials and direct civilian appointees. For what it’s worth, I can say that since even before the Russian invasion began, the admin has been extraordinarily aggressive about declassifying intel for public release, and when I was on the watchfloor in NMCC in 2022, what we saw in open source matched what was being reported only a few days earlier.

The overall message has been pretty consistent - halt Russian aggression in Ukraine because it’s in the US and NATO’s best long-term interests to do so. Putin has been explicit about his belief that virtually all former Russian/Soviet territory, and all Russian-speaking peoples, ultimately should be part of Russia. There’s no reason not to believe him. There’s also the matter that Xi is closely watching the response to Ukraine and weighing the Western appetite for countering aggressive moves against neighbors. Deterrence works, but only if you show you‘re willing to back up your words when it counts.

That said: we don’t control the endgame In Ukraine. Expecting the Ukrainians - who have been defending their own homes and punching well above their weight while doing so - to give up and surrender a chunk of their country whenever some other country decides it’s time is not reasonable, and undermines our credibility with other nations in the future.

As rob mentioned, I am not suggesting the military try to influence public opinion, any more than I'm suggesting they're the ones passing the bills sending funds to Ukraine. Our politicians need to explain what that money is going to and why if they want public support to continue.

Couple of smaller points. Regarding the bolded above, Putin was clear in his recent interview that he has no desire for Poland, the Baltics, etc., and that "It goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war and a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction. It's obvious." He is right... it is obvious. In my opinion, those who claim otherwise are just fearmongering.

As for dictating when Ukraine ends the war.. I agree that they should be in charge of that. According to David Arakhamiya, head of the ruling party in Ukraine and leader of the negotiating team Ukraine sent to meet with Russia, they wanted to sign a treaty with Russia last year, but the UK stopped them.

 

[jmcquate]

Understand - but how about a little better explanation from of the likes of John Kirby (I won't touch Karine Jean-Pierre) ??? I mean FFS, my political leanings are not a secret, but the administration could do a LOT more to help their cause in this regard, you know?

No argument here. But this is nothing new, Just business.

 

[Brett327]

I think the general idea is something along the lines of keeping Putin in a quagmire for as long as possible, without saying we're keeping Putin in a quagmire for as long as possible.

So, kinda like the Soviets did with us in Vietnam. 🤔

 

[Brett327]

Because as someone who is a taxpayer and has worn the cloth of our nation for most of my adult life, I’d like a few more details about where the money is going, and has gone, and will go and how all of that folds into ours and NATOs strategy.

So this is a simple fiscal responsibility thing for you? Would you be in favor of withdrawing the billions we give to Israel each year pending a similar “accounting” for what our money is buying us?

 

[Mos]

Because as someone who is a taxpayer and has worn the cloth of our nation for most of my adult life, I’d like a few more details about where the money is going, and has gone, and will go and how all of that folds into ours and NATOs strategy.

It's not a secret. Google "how foreign aid to Ukraine is spent" and first page of results will give you a few more details.

 

[hscs]

As rob mentioned, I am not suggesting the military try to influence public opinion, any more than I'm suggesting they're the ones passing the bills sending funds to Ukraine. Our politicians need to explain what that money is going to and why if they want public support to continue.

Couple of smaller points. Regarding the bolded above, Putin was clear in his recent interview that he has no desire for Poland, the Baltics, etc., and that "It goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war and a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction. It's obvious." He is right... it is obvious. In my opinion, those who claim otherwise are just fearmongering.

As for dictating when Ukraine ends the war.. I agree that they should be in charge of that. According to David Arakhamiya, head of the ruling party in Ukraine and leader of the negotiating team Ukraine sent to meet with Russia, they wanted to sign a treaty with Russia last year, but the UK stopped them.

Wouldn’t call it fearmongering. Putin has not shown any behavior to prove his statement. The only reason he hasn’t rolled into places like Estonia is Ukraine is giving him a run for his money. Hitler made similar remarks, so I don’t believe a word Putin says.

 

[robav8r]

It's not a secret. Google "how foreign aid to Ukraine is spent" and first page of results will give you a few more details.

You and Brett are missing my larger point. This is a messaging problem for the administration. Thanks for the google tips 👍🏻

 

[Griz882]

You and Brett are missing my larger point. This is a messaging problem for the administration. Thanks for the google tips 👍🏻

I tend to agree with this…and it applies to the current administration and the last. As for the last, I attributed it to internal dysfunction and poor management, but Biden has a basically competent staff (hobbled by a poor communicator). Let’s be honest enough to say that we now live in a time of constant political campaigning so while I’m not exactly demanding “the truth” (that I probably couldn’t handle 😎) I am rather sick of hearing about every critical international program or project through a party colored lens.

A good example is Biden trying to balance his support for Israel against the churn in his own party…

MSN

Taken as a whole this is ordinary politics, but the administration’s messaging on this has been awkward at best.

This Atlantic story also has a good explanation (sorry, I think part of it is behind a paywall):

Biden’s Democracy-Defense Credo Does Not Serve U.S. Interests

Centering U.S. foreign policy on this principle is destabilizing abroad and divisive at home.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Flash]

I think the fact that this isn't "All of the money..." is a big sticking point for a lot of people. The article below is a little dated (Sep 2023) but some of the expenditures raise some eyebrows.

In Ukraine, U.S. tax dollars are funding more than just military aid

America has provided more than $70 billion in aid to Ukraine. The money has not just gone to the military, but also to help farmers, small businesses and first responders.

www.cbsnews.com

Things I don't personally think further the national security interests of the US:

1. "The U.S. government is subsidizing small businesses in Ukraine..."

2. "The U.S. government has also bought seeds and fertilizer for Ukrainian farmers."

3. "America is covering the salaries of Ukraine's first responders, all 57,000 of them."

4. "The U.S. funds divers who clear unexploded ammunition from the country's rivers to make them safe again for swimming and fishing."

Actually, helping ensure that the civil society in Ukraine keeps running during the war is in our national security interest, as it helps them to keep flighting off the Russian invasion of their country and prevents them from expanding the war to other countries.

Combine stuff like this with a historically corrupt government (also discussed in the article) and a myriad of domestic issues that could be solved by this money, and it's not hard to see where the growing national fatigue is coming from.

The irony, or not, is that Russia was a key enabler of the corruption that helped keep some of their key allies in power in the country. Western assistance has also been critical in helping with some significant reforms, for a country that is still a very young democracy but a very strong national will to continue to be one. A strong democratic government, answerable to the people, along with a free press is the best antidote to the corruption that Ukraine has experienced and that Russia is still in thrall of.

 

[Notanaviator]

I tend to agree with this…and it applies to the current administration and the last.

The devil's advocacy I'd offer up is that most Americans don't tune in to anything. Following that group, I'd venture to guess the vast majority of those Americans that DO tune in to something to stay current do so to media that is less journalism and more rabble-rousing entertainment TV (MSNBC and Fox types). I think if anyone bothered to read the transcripts of what any admin's spox is saying, they're probably making at least some sort of attempt at answering the 'what exactly is happening and why do we think it's important' question, but that answer is not very exciting, doesn't play well on a chiron, and doesn't provide any cannon fodder for pundit X to rail on about. Despite a 24 hour news cycle and more 'news' on the tv/phone/etc than ever before, there's precious little substance to any of it.

To maybe Griz, maybe someone else's question about specifics on why military aid is important, what pieces of that are making a difference and the like, there are a few good thoughtful/balanced unclass options out there. Michael Kofman's podcasts are typically pretty specific and informative.

 

[number9]

Actually, helping ensure that the civil society in Ukraine keeps running during the war is in our national security interest, as it helps them to keep flighting off the Russian invasion of their country and prevents them from expanding the war to other countries.

While I think that is true, I also think it is tricky to explain to voters.. and especially hard to explain to disinterested voters who love what their guy does and hate what the other guy's does.

 

[Griz882]

While I think that is true, I also think it is tricky to explain to voters.. and especially hard to explain to disinterested voters who love what their guy does and hate what the other guy's does.

Sure…but this is a function of the political parties. If voters are disinterested or hateful it isn’t necessarily the fault of the media, it is the fault of the party. I have no doubt that both parties prefer poorly educated (and that includes plenty of people with a college “education”) and ill-informed voters. I also have no doubt that modern media (hell, even historic media) picks a side and amplifies (or hides) specific messaging. Prior to the 2000’s it was the job of the POTUS to push a unified message that might be shaped by party politics but is directed at the nation as a whole. Today, all we get is “we’re doing this because “they” don’t want it, like it, or understand it.” It isn’t “tricky” to explain something to the voters, you just explain it and act on it because it is the determined course your administration has chosen…damn the political outcome.

Until most American's adopted a sports game mentality about politics (my “side” must win) we all knew that power rested with the House and Senate and a good president communicated a general direction. Now all we get is tribalist churn to amp up the base voter - and that is the problem.