|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 16 2023 09:42 gobbledydook wrote:
If such analysis was mathed out, why can no one here provide any such analysis?
Other than it might be secret, I think a big reason is that nobody actually knows what the outcome of the war and further consequences would be if the West stopped supporting Ukraine, other than it would massively help Russia, so the cost is impossible to ascertain, other than that it would be immense. Would Russia conquer only parts of Ukraine or try to take everything like they initially wanted? If so, would they succeed or get bogged down for years fighting guerillas? Which countries would continue to support Ukraine if the US refused to? Are they NATO countries, and what would that mean for NATO? Would the war then spread to some of these countries? Would the US then intervene, in what capacity and how much would that cost? What would be the cost of millions of Ukrainian refugees (millions more than before) fleeing to the West permanently? What would be the long term consequences of the genocide Russia would commit on Ukrainians? Would Russia incorporate all of Ukraine or install a puppet government like in Belarus? Would Russia take US conceding as a green light for another conquest elsewhere? What about China? How many countries would take US conceding as a sign that they have to work out a deal with Russia or China for peace or protection, essentially turning them over to Russia's or China's sphere of control for a very long time? How long would it take Russia to rebuild its military before they're ready for another war? Would Russia also try to take Moldova or install a puppet government there? Would Russia attack or destabilize NATO countries next, thinking that the US is too weak or afraid to intervene? What would the backlash in Eastern Europe and Baltic States be if the support for Ukraine ceased? What would that mean for NATO? Who would rely on the US as an ally after US reversed course on Ukraine after a year of support? What would that mean for nuclear proliferation?
Not one of these scenarios is good for the US, NATO or world stability, compared to a war contained in Ukraine they're not even in the same category when it comes to potential cost and risk. "Saving money" on Ukraine is like not putting out one fire to save water for when the whole house is burning. If you seriously don't see this, then I don't know what else to tell you.
|
On March 16 2023 16:52 Mikau313 wrote:
In the last +/- year the US has sent about 33 billion in aid to Ukraine, most of which was material that was already bought and paid for and was sitting in storage. The real cost of that 33 billion is going to be quite a bit lower, because a) that money was already spent and the material was mostly going unused and b) US allies are replenishing their own stocks by ordering from the US.
The war in Afghanistan, for contrast, cost around 400 billion per year.
It's really not hard to see the cost/benefit falling in favour of sending unused tanks to Ukraine, and we don't exactly need classified information to get there.
That and the cost in American lives and the political cost of keeping a war running.
Genuinely a no-brainer. The only way you'd be against helping Ukraine is if you were getting a load of cash from Putin to say so.
Edit: And if I were to speculate on costs, I'd imagine fighting Russia near Russian soil would be a lot more expensive than fighting Afghani farmers with 50 year old weapons.
|
On March 16 2023 16:52 Mikau313 wrote:
In the last +/- year the US has sent about 33 billion in aid to Ukraine, most of which was material that was already bought and paid for and was sitting in storage. The real cost of that 33 billion is going to be quite a bit lower, because a) that money was already spent and the material was mostly going unused and b) US allies are replenishing their own stocks by ordering from the US.
The war in Afghanistan, for contrast, cost around 400 billion per year.
It's really not hard to see the cost/benefit falling in favour of sending unused tanks to Ukraine, and we don't exactly need classified information to get there.
On top of this, the value assigned to stuff sent is usually the cost of replacing it - not the value the thing actually had. A stinger missile from 20 years ago has less value than a new one.
|
On March 16 2023 16:52 Mikau313 wrote:
In the last +/- year the US has sent about 33 billion in aid to Ukraine, most of which was material that was already bought and paid for and was sitting in storage. The real cost of that 33 billion is going to be quite a bit lower, because a) that money was already spent and the material was mostly going unused and b) US allies are replenishing their own stocks by ordering from the US.
The war in Afghanistan, for contrast, cost around 400 billion per year.
It's really not hard to see the cost/benefit falling in favour of sending unused tanks to Ukraine, and we don't exactly need classified information to get there.
I've read that the US has sent over $75 billion last year (that does include ostensible loans). That's not counting all the related expenses though.
Since the war began, the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress have directed more than $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine, which includes humanitarian, financial, and military support,* according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German research institute.
*Note: Aid has primarily been provided through appropriations bills. This chart only covers aid to Ukraine and so does not include all U.S. spending related to the war.
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts
The war in Afghanistan cost (depending on the accounting) ~$2.3 trillion over 20 years which works out to about $115 billion a year (a lot more of which was going to US military personnel and being deposited into US bank accounts than is happening with the war in Ukraine).
Other accounting (with much lower total costs through 2019) has the cost for most years of the war in Afghanistan below the costs of the war in Ukraine.
By 2018, the conflict had an annual bill of approximately $52 billion.
+ Show Spoiler +
I doubt it changes anyone's conclusions, but that's a pretty significant difference worth noting.
|
On March 17 2023 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2023 16:52 Mikau313 wrote:
In the last +/- year the US has sent about 33 billion in aid to Ukraine, most of which was material that was already bought and paid for and was sitting in storage. The real cost of that 33 billion is going to be quite a bit lower, because a) that money was already spent and the material was mostly going unused and b) US allies are replenishing their own stocks by ordering from the US.
The war in Afghanistan, for contrast, cost around 400 billion per year.
It's really not hard to see the cost/benefit falling in favour of sending unused tanks to Ukraine, and we don't exactly need classified information to get there.
I've read that the US has sent over $75 billion last year (that does include ostensible loans). That's not counting all the related expenses though. Show nested quote +Since the war began, the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress have directed more than $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine, which includes humanitarian, financial, and military support,* according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German research institute.
*Note: Aid has primarily been provided through appropriations bills. This chart only covers aid to Ukraine and so does not include all U.S. spending related to the war. https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-chartsThe war in Afghanistan cost (depending on the accounting) ~$2.3 trillion over 20 years which works out to about $115 billion a year (a lot more of which was going to US military personnel and being deposited into US bank accounts than is happening with the war in Ukraine). Other accounting (with much lower total costs through 2019) has the cost for most years of the war in Afghanistan below the costs of the war in Ukraine. + Show Spoiler +I doubt it changes anyone's conclusions, but that's a pretty significant difference worth noting. again, 75 billion in assistance doesn't mean that 75 billion was money that could have been spend elsewhere.
If they fabricated and stored a billion worth of equipment 5 years ago and now send that equipment to Ukraine that is 1 billion in assistance. But that billion did not cost the present day government anything and couldn't have been spend on education today.
|
On March 15 2023 08:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2023 22:31 JimmiC wrote:DeSantis os alligning himself with Trump and the far right MAGA crowd with the Russian invaison. Expect a lot of insults and "woke wars" if it enss up these two not going to be much policy differnce. All the Reps that think Biden has not gone far enough are not going to prefer DenSantis. “While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness with our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural and military power of the Chinese Communist Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them,” Mr. DeSantis said in a statement that Mr. Carlson read aloud on his show. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/us/politics/ron-desantis-ukraine-tucker-carlson.html Everyone take note of your reasonable right wing friends current perspectives on Ukraine and watch how they completely flip after a few months of being told this is the anti-lib perspective.
Important to note that DeSantis did not say that the US should stop sending money and weapons to Ukraine. He did offer some specifics by saying that we should not send our own troops or fly our own planes there. So the statement that we should not become "further entangled" is consistent with staying the current course of sending money, weapons and ammo.
|
|
|
On March 17 2023 08:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 04:59 King_Charles_III wrote:On March 15 2023 08:19 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2023 22:31 JimmiC wrote:DeSantis os alligning himself with Trump and the far right MAGA crowd with the Russian invaison. Expect a lot of insults and "woke wars" if it enss up these two not going to be much policy differnce. All the Reps that think Biden has not gone far enough are not going to prefer DenSantis. “While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness with our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural and military power of the Chinese Communist Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them,” Mr. DeSantis said in a statement that Mr. Carlson read aloud on his show. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/us/politics/ron-desantis-ukraine-tucker-carlson.html Everyone take note of your reasonable right wing friends current perspectives on Ukraine and watch how they completely flip after a few months of being told this is the anti-lib perspective. Important to note that DeSantis did not say that the US should stop sending money and weapons to Ukraine. He did offer some specifics by saying that we should not send our own troops or fly our own planes there. So the statement that we should not become "further entangled" is consistent with staying the current course of sending money, weapons and ammo. The part everyone is rightfully concerned about is calling it a territorial dispute.
Territorial dispute is a really nice way to say "full blown invasion for a land grab'.
I am convinced that it is right for the US to continue supporting Ukraine, however a drip feed of supplies like it is right now might be the most expensive way to do it.
|
Expensive for US, Ukraine or Russia?
The fact that it is the most expensive (realistically, for all 3) is a feature not a bug. When your coffers are much bigger than your opponent, expensive for all parties involved isn't a bad thing.
The fact that Ukrainians suffer more because of that is probably no more than an unfortunate side effect as far as the US is concerned.
|
|
|
On March 17 2023 16:23 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 08:02 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2023 04:59 King_Charles_III wrote:On March 15 2023 08:19 Mohdoo wrote:On March 14 2023 22:31 JimmiC wrote:DeSantis os alligning himself with Trump and the far right MAGA crowd with the Russian invaison. Expect a lot of insults and "woke wars" if it enss up these two not going to be much policy differnce. All the Reps that think Biden has not gone far enough are not going to prefer DenSantis. “While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness with our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural and military power of the Chinese Communist Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them,” Mr. DeSantis said in a statement that Mr. Carlson read aloud on his show. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/us/politics/ron-desantis-ukraine-tucker-carlson.html Everyone take note of your reasonable right wing friends current perspectives on Ukraine and watch how they completely flip after a few months of being told this is the anti-lib perspective. Important to note that DeSantis did not say that the US should stop sending money and weapons to Ukraine. He did offer some specifics by saying that we should not send our own troops or fly our own planes there. So the statement that we should not become "further entangled" is consistent with staying the current course of sending money, weapons and ammo. The part everyone is rightfully concerned about is calling it a territorial dispute. Territorial dispute is a really nice way to say "full blown invasion for a land grab'. I am convinced that it is right for the US to continue supporting Ukraine, however a drip feed of supplies like it is right now might be the most expensive way to do it.
A drip feed, as opposed to a significant escalation by the United States, might still be a better (and ultimately less expensive) option if we consider how Russia might "retaliate" to a sudden increase in American "aggression". I don't think we can know for sure though.
|
Slow drip is likely the best option for making sure Russia commits as much as possible and spends as much as possible. It is advantageous to the West for Russia to think it is possible they have a shot at actually seizing and controlling territory so that additional investment feels worthwhile.
In addition, the west has largely been slowly increasing the technological level of aid provided, which has allowed for slow and steady characterization of Russia's capabilities as well as real-world testing of western capabilities.
|
I think it's also worth noting that if positions were switched and it was America waging war in order to absorb Ukraine and erase its people, Republicans wouldn't be able to show their support for that war fast enough, and no amount of expense would be too expensive, because you're buying freedom. They're clutching their pearls and purse strings because they want Russia to win, not Ukraine.
|
New York Law Enforcement is prepping for an indictment of Trump as early as next week
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/17/trump-grand-jury-new-york-law-enforcement-prepping-for-indictment.html
If Trump is indicted next week, we will not hear about it until he goes before the court unless Trump or his lawyers decide to speak on the matter beforehand. Even if Trump does speak on the matter, the Manhattan DA's office cannot speak about the indictment until it is officially unsealed once Trump goes before the court.
|
|
|
If Trump says he’ll be arrested on Tuesday, then we can be pretty sure he’s not going to be arrested on Tuesday.
|
It is interesting to wonder what Trump's play is here. Regardless of what the truth is, I do think this indicates he is in a bad position right now. It may be that he expects to be arrested on Wednesday so he is saying Tuesday
|
My guess is Trump and his lawyers have negotiated a day to surrender with the Manhattan DA and he is using the time between then and now to get the court of public opinion on his side and to do what he can to get a potential pool of jurors biased in his favor. The various legal experts I've been following on this subject predicted he would be indicted as early as March a while ago so I wouldn't be surprised if he really does get arrested next Tuesday
|
This is going to be a shitshow.
We have a strange situation where both sides want Trump to be arrested. Bragg is using it as an opportunity to further his career no doubt; if he successfully prosecutes the case he would be a top tier candidate for any Democratic primary afterwards. Trump wants to get arrested to stay in the spotlight and rile up his supporters.
|
I'm pretty sure Trump himself hella does not want to get arrested. The Republican party whoever would love it, both to remove him personally from the picture and to be able to use his arrest to drum up the base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5d7a0c5dc0e1890008d130f5/960x0.jpg?fit=scale)
