Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Washington Post is running an article with a recent accounting of spending on Ukraine.

...
“These are off-the-charts numbers,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He likened the figures to U.S. commitments to European countries at the end of World War II. The Marshall Plan, when adjusted for inflation, came to about $150 billion over three years.

...

“We could do it forever,” O’Hanlon said of this rate of funding and support for Ukraine. “It’s not economically unsustainable. But it’s probably politically unsustainable.”

...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...r-us-spending/

While the numbers are indeed astronomical, on the order of ~$200 billions, I would argue that they are only a fraction of the true spending as they do not include the subsidies wasted because of the NS2 sabotage, and other diversions of spending toward unproductive areas of the economy to shore up the war effort.
 
Reuters…

Stoltenberg said it had to be expected that the offensive would be advancing only slowly.

"No one ever said that this was going to be easy," he noted. "Hardly any time in history we have seen more mines on the battlefield than we are seeing in Ukraine today. So it was obvious that this was going to be extremely difficult."

Ukrainian officials have said in the past week that their forces have managed to push past Russia's first line of defences but now confronted further lines in areas where Moscow has had time to build up fortifications and minefields.

"They are making progress. Not perhaps as much as we hoped for but they are gaining ground gradually," said the NATO chief. "Some hundred meters per day, meaning that when the Ukrainians are gaining ground, the Russians are losing ground."

Praising the Ukrainian forces for their achievements on the battlefield, he added: "The starting point is that the Russian army used to be the second strongest in the world. And now the Russian army is the second strongest in Ukraine. That's quite impressive by Ukrainians."
 
The Washington Post is running an article with a recent accounting of spending on Ukraine.

...
“These are off-the-charts numbers,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He likened the figures to U.S. commitments to European countries at the end of World War II. The Marshall Plan, when adjusted for inflation, came to about $150 billion over three years.

...

“We could do it forever,” O’Hanlon said of this rate of funding and support for Ukraine. “It’s not economically unsustainable. But it’s probably politically unsustainable.”

...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...r-us-spending/

While the numbers are indeed astronomical, on the order of ~$200 billions, I would argue that they are only a fraction of the true spending as they do not include the subsidies wasted because of the NS2 sabotage, and other diversions of spending toward unproductive areas of the economy to shore up the war effort.
Ukraine will be a massive issue in the race to become POTUS.

The Republicans will see it as a nerve they can press on and position the Democratic elite as ignoring their own people's problems to hand American taxes to a kleptocratic government in Kyiv.

It'll defo ignite in the Republican primaries.
 
Ukraine will be a massive issue in the race to become POTUS.

The Republicans will see it as a nerve they can press on and position the Democratic elite as ignoring their own people's problems to hand American taxes to a kleptocratic government in Kyiv.

It'll defo ignite in the Republican primaries.
If Ukraine can isolate the Crimean peninsula or even take it before winter it'll be much less an issue. Even now its the MAGA fringe that oppose funding it. Moderate republicans and voters would generally support it too (as they do with Taiwan) up to a point and that would be boots on the ground. The fiscal argument against it doesnt really stack up.
 
If Ukraine can isolate the Crimean peninsula or even take it before winter it'll be much less an issue. Even now its the MAGA fringe that oppose funding it. Moderate republicans and voters would generally support it too (as they do with Taiwan) up to a point and that would be boots on the ground. The fiscal argument against it doesnt really stack up.
Do they even exist?

No way the Crimea is taken back in any case. I think we'd see mushroom clouds before that ever happened.
 
Great to the preparation to liberate Crimea is underway.

Kyrylo Budanov, the Ukrainian intelligence chief, said that their forces will enter Crimea “soon” but as per the article below they are already there!



Doesn't take a genius to work out what is going to come.
 
Do they even exist?

No way the Crimea is taken back in any case. I think we'd see mushroom clouds before that ever happened.

The next 4 or 5 weeks will decide that. If Ukraine get to HIMARS range of the black sea (Tomak is pretty much that distance) then Russia has essentially no way to resupply along the southern coast.

Nuclear option is over played, Putin cant simply unilaterally decide to lauch a Nuclear device in the same way Biden cant. Even a strategic Nuclear devise would have catastrophic effects on Eastern and central Europe. Wont happen.
 
Great to the preparation to liberate Crimea is underway.

Kyrylo Budanov, the Ukrainian intelligence chief, said that their forces will enter Crimea “soon” but as per the article below they are already there!



Doesn't take a genius to work out what is going to come.
I mean, you do recognise that getting a small motorboar near to the Crimean coastline and a few marines on land before scarpering doesn't amount to liberation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top