Oddball
Player Valuation: £20m
Yes world, look at Oddball.................and btw, don`t take any notice of the other $60B that was sent to Ukraine in May.
Current Affairs Ukraine
- Thread starter Mutzo Nutzo
- Start date
- Status
Good point well made
devogue
Player Valuation: £35m
$40 billion in equipment, not cash. Also America spends $800 billion on defence each year so...
Oddball
Player Valuation: £20m
What are you insinuating? I`m sure the Pentagon can account for every last penny.
In terms of return on investment must be one of the most effective expenditures ever for US defense spending.
It’s Costing Peanuts for the US to Defeat Russia
The cost-benefit analysis of US support for Ukraine is incontrovertible. It’s producing wins at almost every level.
The Ukrainian armed forces have already killed or wounded upwards of 100,000 Russian troops, half its original fighting force; there have been almost 8,000 confirmed losses of armored vehicles including thousands of tanks, thousands of APCs, artillery pieces, hundreds of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and numerous naval vessels. US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment. If we divide out the US defense budget to the threats it faces, Russia would perhaps be of the order of $100bn-150bn in spend-to-threat. So spending just $40bn a year, erodes a threat value of $100-150bn, a two-to-three time return. Actually the return is likely to be multiples of this given that defense spending, and threat are annual recurring events.
devogue
Player Valuation: £35m
That America isn't investing much into this war in the grand scheme of things.
Oddball
Player Valuation: £20m
Really? - Is that information straight out of the Daily Sun [Poor language removed]-sheet or did the Pentagon ring you up and tell you, because as far as i know you can`t divulge what`s on the cafeteria menu without breaching the Official Secrets Act let alone the "facts and figures" you`ve mentioned.In terms of return on investment must be one of the most effective expenditures ever for US defense spending.
These sums pale into insignificance when set against a total US defense budget of $715bn for 2022. The assistance represents 5.6% of total US defense spending. But Russia is a primary adversary of the US, a top tier rival not too far behind China, its number one strategic challenger. In cold, geopolitical terms, this war provides a prime opportunity for the US to erode and degrade Russia’s conventional defense capability, with no boots on the ground and little risk to US lives.It’s Costing Peanuts for the US to Defeat Russia
The cost-benefit analysis of US support for Ukraine is incontrovertible. It’s producing wins at almost every level.cepa.org
The Ukrainian armed forces have already killed or wounded upwards of 100,000 Russian troops, half its original fighting force; there have been almost 8,000 confirmed losses of armored vehicles including thousands of tanks, thousands of APCs, artillery pieces, hundreds of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and numerous naval vessels. US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment. If we divide out the US defense budget to the threats it faces, Russia would perhaps be of the order of $100bn-150bn in spend-to-threat. So spending just $40bn a year, erodes a threat value of $100-150bn, a two-to-three time return. Actually the return is likely to be multiples of this given that defense spending, and threat are annual recurring events.
"pales into insignificance"!!! -do the math, it`s about 15% and counting!
#It`sCalledPropaganda
Bishop Thumpety-Thump
Player Valuation: £20m
The source is right there in the post, are you genuinely so stupid you can’t read it, sister Noballs?
Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
How the Battle for the Donbas Shaped Ukraine’s Success - Foreign Policy Research Institute
As the Russian-Ukrainian War enters the winter, Ukrainians have reason to be cautiously optimistic about the course of the war. Following a strategic
www.fpri.org
Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
Why I Fought in Ukraine & Will Fight Harder in America
Zelensky’s speech distilled the sacrifices of his people into a stiff shot courage and defiance America needed. As a Ukrainian Foreign Legionnaire, I risked my life to help save both countries.
malcolmnance.substack.com
Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
Путин потребовал за любые деньги срочно улучшить российское оружие - Русская служба The Moscow Times
Предприятиям оборонно-промышленного комплекса необходимо в короткие сроки нарастить производство оружия и «значительно улучшить» его характеристики, заявил в пятницу президент Владимир Путин.
Literally sums you up
I mentioned soon after the outset of the war that the US, UK and Nato would be content to sustain Ukraine if it eroded the Russian military, which it has.In terms of return on investment must be one of the most effective expenditures ever for US defense spending.
These sums pale into insignificance when set against a total US defense budget of $715bn for 2022. The assistance represents 5.6% of total US defense spending. But Russia is a primary adversary of the US, a top tier rival not too far behind China, its number one strategic challenger. In cold, geopolitical terms, this war provides a prime opportunity for the US to erode and degrade Russia’s conventional defense capability, with no boots on the ground and little risk to US lives.It’s Costing Peanuts for the US to Defeat Russia
The cost-benefit analysis of US support for Ukraine is incontrovertible. It’s producing wins at almost every level.
The Ukrainian armed forces have already killed or wounded upwards of 100,000 Russian troops, half its original fighting force; there have been almost 8,000 confirmed losses of armored vehicles including thousands of tanks, thousands of APCs, artillery pieces, hundreds of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and numerous naval vessels. US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment. If we divide out the US defense budget to the threats it faces, Russia would perhaps be of the order of $100bn-150bn in spend-to-threat. So spending just $40bn a year, erodes a threat value of $100-150bn, a two-to-three time return. Actually the return is likely to be multiples of this given that defense spending, and threat are annual recurring events.
While it's terrible for Ukraine, a sustained conflict will continue to chip away at Russia in terms of its military, its economy and its standing within the region.
The current cost of $40bn is way below the trillions of dollars that the US spent on the likes of Vietnam, The Gulf War and Afghanistan, so it's good value for money.
Materially, Russia still has sizeable stockpiles of assets, but replacing their PGMs, lost aircraft and key assets such as EW and ADs will be lengthy and costly.
They'll have to offset that cost somewhere else, and I'd not be surprised if that comes out of maintenance schedules (already corrupt) and whatnot.
The material worth of their assets may therefore decline. You've got to then consider what they've lost in terms of leaderships - officers and NCOs.
Russia will be setback for close to a decade or more.
Diogenes the Cynic
Player Valuation: £40m
It's things like this which completely show up the integrity of politicians within the system.
If the situation for the US is viewed dispassionately and purely from a strategic perspective then if the war is contained to those two countries then this is an absolute open goal to economically devastate Russia in the short term.
When you have US politicians arguing Russias' case something is seriously rotten and either personal or party interests are being recommended against the good of the nation.
There'll be those who genuinely look at Russia favourably, but I suspect they're actually few and far between. This where political positioning comes in to play.
There'll be those who are more akin to isolationism (it's not their problem), so will argue for less US support; there's also those wanting to appease the weirdos.*
Yet, let's not forget that money talks. Those, whose moral compass perhaps is questionable, may talk the talk, but in this war there'll be money to be made.
Some many say I am cynical, although I wouldn't be surprised if those to the centre and right may be happy to take favours from certain big industries.
The US taxpayer may be helping to fund the purchase of new equipment, however those companies will make a profit.
*conspiracy theorists.
- Status