… this is starting to look like Afghanistan’s “endless engagement”.
U.S. to announce $3 billion in new military aid for Ukraine - official
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-announce-3-bln-arms-package…
Washington has provided $10.6 billion in military assistance to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s government since Feb. 24.
I noticed that Zelenskiy said today that “the war ain’t over until they drive the Russians out of Crimea.”
What’s that going to cost US taxpayers?
intercst
I noticed that Zelenskiy said today that “the war ain’t over until they drive the Russians out of Crimea.”
What’s that going to cost US taxpayers?
intercst
It will be much cheaper than using and losing US troops in Afghanistan’s “endless engagement”? The Ukraine provides the highly motivated troops?
Tim
I noticed that Zelenskiy said today that “the war ain’t over until they drive the Russians out of Crimea.”
What’s that going to cost US taxpayers?
There is only 1 thing egomaniacal leaders like Putin understand, force.
I see 3 options:
Do nothing and watch Putin grab more and more land. After all, Putin just wants peace. A piece of this, a piece of that …….
Fund the Ukrainians who have so far shown to be fierce and able fighters.
Wait until Putin forces the U.S. military and NATO alliance to get involved, costing American lives and lots more money.
I’ll take door number two, Monty.
AW
US and NATO “force” has killed very many innocent Ukrainians and distroyed parts of the country.
In fact for the moment it looks exactly like Afghanistan.
Is it easy/worth to finance wars which are thousands of miles away from home?
I´m sure The President has the answer.
I noticed that Zelenskiy said today that “the war ain’t over until they drive the Russians out of Crimea.”
What’s that going to cost US taxpayers?
Dunno, but the Pentagon has $3 billion in their couch cushions. The cost is trivial. The reality is Putin has spent literally his entire career undermining the national security interests of the United States. At the same time, almost all of our equipment and doctrine is designed to defeat Russia on the battlefield. Giving our equipment to Ukraine and have them defeat Russia instead is the deal of the century. Neutering Putin solves a whole bunch of our problems. Seeing Ukraine fight the much larger Russian army to a standstill fills my black heart with glee. If I were imperator, I’d be sending $3 billion a week.
Shoot, the army has thousands of Humvees that are mothballed that they are planning on getting rid of. The air force has hundreds of F-16s mothballed in the desert that they are also planning on getting of. I’d just give the keys to the Ukrainians and let them have at it. Why not? We’re not planning on using it.
Related, I saw this opinion piece by the Polish Prime Minister excoriating Germany and the West for letting Putin get this far out of hand in the first place.
The war in Ukraine has exposed the truth about Russia. Those who refused to see that Putin’s state has imperialist tendencies today have to face the fact that in Russia, the demons of the 19th and 20th centuries were revived: nationalism, colonialism, and totalitarianism. But the war in Ukraine has also exposed the truth about Europe. Many European leaders allowed themselves to be lured by Vladimir Putin and today are in a shock.
The return of Russian imperialism should come as no surprise. Russia had been rebuilding its position slowly for almost two decades right under the eye of the West. Meanwhile, the West went for a geopolitical slumber instead of maintaining reasonable vigilance. It preferred not to see the increasing problem rather than face it in advance.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/prime-minister-of-poland-we…
“The war in Ukraine has exposed the truth about Russia. Those who refused to see that Putin’s state has imperialist tendencies today have to face the fact that in Russia, the demons of the 19th and 20th centuries were revived: nationalism, colonialism, and totalitarianism. But the war in Ukraine has also exposed the truth about Europe.”
How about the USA?
I noticed that Zelenskiy said today that “the war ain’t over until they drive the Russians out of Crimea.”
What’s that going to cost US taxpayers?
A whole lot less than it’ll cost the Russians!
For what we consider chunk change Russia’s Paper Bear (a play on China’s Paper Tiger, get it?) is flailing away at the Ukraine buzz saw and only Russia’s sheer size is keeping it in the fight.
We, the West, are providing used weapons and old munitions to Ukraine which is using them to cream the commies.
Yeah, I know, Russia’s leadership claims to be new and improved. BUT the ‘new’ leadership looks and acts a whole lot like Russia’s old leadership.
So while Russia expends troops and treasure against Ukraine we clear our warehouses of out of date munitions and supplies. Meanwhile, (being good Capitalists) we buy/build better/newer toys to replenish our own stores.
So it’s a win/win for US and the Ukrainians but bad borscht for Putin.
Putin just wants peace.
Everyone just wants peace, on their terms.
So while Russia expends troops and treasure against Ukraine we clear our warehouses of out of date munitions and supplies.
The unions at the defense contractors (as well as their bosses) must have been complaining about that as this latest$3B is to be from specifically manufactured weapons, rather than from the military’s stockpoles.
Jeff
What’s that going to cost US taxpayers?
A whole lot less than it’ll cost the Russians!
Ukraine is playing great chess! A commentator had this to say:
Ukraine announced a drive to take back Kherson, just north of the Dnieper River. In response Russia sent more troops and weapons to defended the city. The Ukrainian drive never came, instead they bombarded strategic sites in Crimea and destroyed the bridges across the Dnieper used to supply the Russian troops or to stage their retreat. The purpose of the exercise according to the commentator was to lure as many Russian troops as possible into a trap to cause maximum attrition to the Russians.
It’s costing the US not a single casualty! Ukraine is one of the cheapest wars America has ever fought!
The Captain
So while Russia expends troops and treasure against Ukraine we clear our warehouses of out of date munitions and supplies.
It will take years to replenish stinger & javelins.
https://discussion.fool.com/years-2-replenish-stingersjavelins-3…
NATO countries have the same replenishment problem.
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/272663778/german-militar…
German military stock at its limit after supplying Ukraine - Der Spiegel
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/admiral-chief-of-the-d…
Replacing UK’s weapons stockpiles could take ‘years’, says head of armed forces
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/comme…
Presently, the US is decreasing its artillery ammunition stockpiles. In 2020, artillery ammunition purchases decreased by 36% to $425 million. In 2022, the plan is to reduce expenditure on 155mm artillery rounds to $174 million. This is equivalent to 75,357 M795 basic ‘dumb’ rounds for regular artillery, 1,400 XM1113 rounds for the M777, and 1,046 XM1113 rounds for Extended Round Artillery Cannons. Finally, there are $75 million dedicated for Excalibur precision-guided munitions that costs $176K per round, thus totaling 426 rounds. In short, US annual artillery production would at best only last for 10 days to two weeks of combat in Ukraine. If the initial estimate of Russian shells fired is over by 50%, it would only extend the artillery supplied for three weeks.
The US is not the only country facing this challenge. In a recent war game involving US, UK and French forces, UK forces exhausted national stockpiles of critical ammunition after eight days.
2 different viewpoints
A)US & NATO military have tons of weapons & ammunition in warehouse ready to go. Those just have to flip a switch to replenish supply.
B)US & NATO have limited amounts of weapons & ammunition. And it will take years to replenish military aid sent to the Ukraine.
Depending on which viewpoint is true affects what the cost & effect on military preparedness of supplying countries will be.
Depending on which viewpoint is true affects what the cost & effect on military preparedness of supplying countries will be.
That does not even mean a major or much of an increase in defense spending. Just shifting priorities.
The reports are also disjointed. There was a report weapons are not reaching the front.
Part of this is to goad Russia into an all out offensive. If that happens and fails Ukraine can kick them out. The stalemate works for Ukraine but possibly at a greater cost. The Russians do not seem to be falling for the bait. Possibly the first thing in the theater they get right.
Putin just wants peace.
He HAD peace. It wasn’t good enough for him. This is like the third or fourth war he’s started in attempts to expand Russia.
He has stated that he wants Ukraine under Russia’s control as a buffer zone - which means, he wants all of Ukraine.
He has also stated that Ukraine is part of Russia - which means, he wants all of Ukraine AND (for that buffer zone) all of the next country to the west.
And yet some useful {ahem} still believe he just wants peace, and will be satisfied if we let him keep an additional small chunk of Ukraine.
2 different viewpoints
A)US & NATO military have tons of weapons & ammunition in warehouse ready to go. Those just have to flip a switch to replenish supply.
B)US & NATO have limited amounts of weapons & ammunition. And it will take years to replenish military aid sent to the Ukraine.
There is another viewpoint as well: Revisit how big we need our stockpiles to be.
For example, the Army has huge numbers of stockpiled tanks and armored equipment:
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sierra-army-depot
We could probably safely give Ukraine a portion of that (after it was refurbished). Reports say that the US has supplied about a third of its Javelin inventory to Ukraine. Could we safely make due with half the original inventory for a period of time?
There is a cost to not supplying Ukraine as well. Until the situation is straightened out energy markets are going to be in a state of disruption. I imagine prices will be much higher in the winter and that can’t be good for our economy.
For example, the Army has huge numbers of stockpiled tanks and armored equipment:
We are not supplying tanks & armed equipment but stingers, javelins, and artillery cannons & ammo.
Could we safely make due with half the original inventory for a period of time?
Likely depends if we get in a war or not. Experts have indicated that it will take 5 years to replenish the javelin inventory!
https://news.usni.org/2022/04/27/u-s-missiles-sent-to-ukrain…
It would seem the US military keeps just enough for peacetime. And if the 5 year javelin replenishment is any indication of of US military industrial capacity, we are really screwed. Yet out nation currently spends nearly a trillion bucks annually on defense. Gotta keep funding them p*ss-poor weapon systems like F-35, Littoral Combat Ship & Ford class aircraft carrier.
Our defense costs like heath care & higher education costs are excessive & poorly managed.
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/global-forc…
The U.S. Army’s deputy chief of staff for logistics said he is concerned about the service’s shrinking munitions stockpile.
Years of budget cuts have led to a growing shortage of munition production to restore what the Army has expended in various contingencies, and Lt. Gen. Aundre Piggee said repeatedly at a House Armed Services readiness subcommittee hearing Wednesday that more munitions are needed.
“Today I think we have adequate munitions for our normal requirements,” he said. “But if we had to surge, if we had contingency operations and if there continues to be emerging threats we see around the world, I am very concerned with our current stockage of munitions.”
Likely depends if we get in a war or not. Experts have indicated that it will take 5 years to replenish the javelin inventory!
Understood, but that really wasn’t my question. My question was how big does the Javelin inventory actually need to be? Maybe the inventory could safely be smaller. I don’t know the answer to that question.
But let me pull a quote and leave it up to the reader to guess which Sec. of Defense made it:
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you’ve squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don’t fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You’ve directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.
The answer is…Dick Cheney. Yes, Dick Cheney complaining about having too many weapons. Fast forward 30 years later, and the Army is still complaining about buying too many tanks:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-agai…
How much other stuff is Congress buying that the military doesn’t need or want? Probably quite a bit. I’m merely suggesting we take a sober look at the inventory.
How much other stuff is Congress buying that the military doesn’t need or want? Probably quite a bit. I’m merely suggesting we take a sober look at the inventory.
We would need much less if the US would abandon it’s interventionist foreign policy of warfare. And the citizenry would benefit more those monies were directed toward infrastructure maintenance/improvement.
How much other stuff is Congress buying that the military doesn’t need or want? Probably quite a bit. I’m merely suggesting we take a sober look at the inventory.
The long time favorite was the Warthog that was ‘killed’ multiple times but kept rising from the ashes. The problem stemmed from the issue involving what should have been an Army task but the Army was supposed to be limited to flying helos and the Airforce didn’t want them as the task was too down in the weeds for their liking. That is over simplistic as busy little beavers at the Pentagon kept putting ‘stuff’ that involved CRTs and loud warning sounds in the over worked single pilot’s eyes, ears and brain. Even a couple of Blue on Blue attacks weren’t enough.
I haven’t heard anything for awhile so perhaps …
Well, some hope on the horizon? Tim
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/03/28/air-force-would-c…
Air Warfare
Air Force would cut 150 aircraft, including A-10s, buy fewer F-35s in 2023 budget
By Stephen Losey Monday, Mar 28
What’s in the package?
This latest package includes laser-guided rocket systems, six National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) with additional ammunition, 24 counter-artillery radars, Puma Unmanned Aerial Systems, VAMPIRE Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems, 245,000 rounds of 155mm artillery ammunition, 65,000 rounds of 120mm mortar ammunition, and additional funding for Ukrainian forces’ training and maintenance.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-military-industr…