"How will Ukraine spend its new US aid?" Topic

It's a fraught question amid Russian gains, uncertain long-term U.S. support, and Kyiv's eventual need to end the war.

Defense One: link

If the Ukraine must end the conflict with the Russians still occupying part of their territory. This will be a Putin/Russian "win". As I have always posted here, part of this which could be another debacle is because the US officials dragged their feet to get the Ukraine what they needed as the Russians were lining up along the border two years ago. Before a shot was fired.

The Ukraine has reduced the Russian forces by about 50% … What would those losses have looked like if the Ukraine had all they needed two years ago ? More than 50% Russian losses I'd think … We may never really know … But again, I know why …

Like a drunken sailor (apologies to any drunken sailors out there).

Russia, Iran, Hamas, North Korea vs Israel and Ukraine.
It's all the same war.
It's 1940 and we can send weapons or we can wait and fight over Europe again.

Mr. 4 is correct.

Most of the money is spent in the US to buy US made weapons, or to refurbish and transport weapons, like tanks and APCs in long term storage.

Russia has invaded and taken territory from not less than four independent countries since Putin has been in charge.

Bunkermeister

If they get the aid in cash then there will be some very happy Ukrainian pollies and bureaucrats holidaying in Nice, the Bahamas or Costa del Sol.

If they get it in equipment then there may be some Ukrainian troops and civvies who have a bit more hope.

Most military aid is not in the form of cash but rather from US stocks with the replacements manufactured in the US by US firms.

I have no idea how any economic aid is disbursed.

Shouldn't the proper question be:

"How will US administration spend its new Ukrainian aid budget?"

since they are the ones calling the shots what will be sent to Ukraine (and also the ones who know how much of what is actually available in the stores).

The Ukrainian wishlist for military equipment is not exactly a big secret. Lately the top of the list has been air defense missiles, conventional artillery munitions and long range ground-to-ground artillery rockets/missiles.

Those F-16s and a comprehensive package of air-to-ground munitions will finally arrive.

The pilot training has already been undertaken (according to press reporting).

AFAIK the F-16 aircraft are being donated by various European countries, and have nothing to do with US aid budgets.

Whether US will eventually provide munitions for them may be another issue.

I would assume we will be sending significant stocks of 155mm shells, GMLRS, ATACMS, Bradleys, Patriot missiles, javelins, M113s etc. What has worked so far but the Ukrainians are probably low on.

"Like a drunken sailor (apologies to any drunken sailors out there)."

Unlike politicians, drunken sailors spend their own money.

Why do I imagine that Rick James as their ambassador?

Much of it will go into the pockets of the Ukrainian leadership, some of it will go to the people, (a token), some to the military…
Think 80% 5% 15% and you'll get the idea.

My state of Texas could have made use of it for defending our border.

Dachas, Dames and Disneyland??

I mean, yeah, its not like that money gets spent paying the American MIC is it?

Most of it will go to American companies to provide the arms and ammunition needed. Ukraine will definitely need more artillery shells.

"Much of it will go into the pockets of the Ukrainian leadership, some of it will go to the people, (a token), some to the military…
Think 80% 5% 15% and you'll get the idea."

You do realise that they do not just fly over big bags of cash , as Grattan and others mention most of the money will go to the American economy.

Still Putin says it will all go to private accounts so it must be true,

Tally Ho!

Pocket most of it, send some back to government and armament companies for kickbacks. Some will show up in private bank accounts in foreign countries

The amount of Russian talking points being spouted as facts on here is astonishing.

McKinstry has it right. The aid is in overwhelmingly in weapons, not cash and the cash is going to US manufacturers to replace the older stuff being given to Ukraine to defend themselves against Russia's aggression and (hopefully) stop Putin before he decides to test NATO article 5.

But, muh, government bad and a crime family! (Therefore anything, anything that backs up that internal echo chamber cannot be wrong….. )

What the US will actually spend the money on…
YouTube link

+1 Midlander.

As a reformed drunk sailor, all is forgiven. Because, y'all told the truth.

Midlander65
is absolutely correct. The amount of Russian talking points being spouted as facts is astonishing, but it does provide me a nice list of folks to put on 'Stifle" so that I do not need see their complete and absolutely embarrassing nonsense.

+1 Midlander. I can't believe how many have been taken in by Putin propaganda and the desire to serve a certain orange haired gentleman.

Thank you Midlander. Well said.

Grattan54 even Trump has called for Ukraine aid, but he wants it in loans rather than gifts. Not unlike lend / lease of WWII.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Proposing a loan sounds good but then reality sets in. I was always taught that when you give a loan to someone that can't afford to pay it back, then it is essentially a gift.
At the end of this war the last thing that Ukraine needs is a huge loan that it will never be able to pay back. They are going to need every penny they have to pay for reconstruction.
Calling for a loan rather than military aid (gift) is nothing more than a talking point.

Martyn K under the WWII terms the UK paid their loan back but it took them 60 years. That's still better than a gift. Also the items sent could also be returned for credit. Often the payback was done in commodities, so Ukraine could send grain.
It's not just a talking point. The idea is to help but not to just give everything away.

Bunkermeister

This bi-partisan agreement will probably lead to a lot more ATACMS

link

So that'll stretch the Russian Logistics train as previously "safe" areas are now…not safe.

Bunkermeister,

yes, now he does. But for the longest time he opposed any
aid going to Ukraine. This was picked up by his supporters.

"Martyn K under the WWII terms the UK paid their loan back but it took them 60 years. That's still better than a gift. Also the items sent could also be returned for credit. Often the payback was done in commodities, so Ukraine could send grain.
It's not just a talking point. The idea is to help but not to just give everything away.

Bunkermeister"

There's always the hope that the bill might be paid out of Russia's reparations, or failing that, seized Russian assets.

The lend lease to the UK is quite interesting. The US supplied about $34 USD Billion of equipment to the UK in WW2. Some was offset by access to UK bases. At the end of the war the UK decided to keep about $10 USD Billion of equipment which it purchased at around 10% resulting in a loan of about $1 USDBillion payable over 50 years (actually paid back over slightly longer period). This compares to the UK GDP in 1947 of around $228 USD Billion. So the total loan was 0.4% of annual GDP.

The 2021 GDP of Ukraine was around $199 USD Billion. The total aid to them so far (from the US only) is around $75 USDBillion. [There is actually more aid from Europe].
What is not clear is how much the US would want back of the $75 USD Billion (would it be 10% and of what amount) and over what term. Not to mention the complexities of why should the US be preferentially paid back over Europe when Europe has contributed more.

As the Ukraine GDP now is around the same as the UK GDP at the end of the Second World War, anything over $1 USDBillion over 50 years would impose more of a burden on Ukraine than the loan repayment placed on the UK. Expecting $75 USD Billion back over 50 years is significantly more onerous. I am not even sure that the people talking about load repayment are thinking about 50 years or have even given the term much thought.
It seems that war is getting more expensive.

Now this all prompts a further question, if Ukraine is expected to pay back some or all of the money with its limited capabilities and the cost of rebuilding, then what about the military aid to Israel that has $525 USD Billion GDP and no cost of rebuilding. Wouldn't there be more chance of getting some of those funds back and within a reasonable timescale?

Still Putin says it will all go to private accounts so it must be true,

There's a lot of short term (perhaps selective?) memory on this board, Nick. Before the Russian invasion Ukraine had a reputation for corruption. It was also a major base for cyber crime. You can see national corruption ratings back to 2000 at link . Ukraine rates as slightly less corrupt than Russia itself. To be fair things have improved a bit over the last few years, but they still rate with places like Bosnia, Algeria and Serbia.

So I wasn't listening to that demented dictator Putin, I was simply using my memory (and exaggerating, I admit). A few pro-and anti-Ukraine"goldfish" on this forum may want to try that on occasion.

"There's a lot of short term (perhaps selective?) memory on this board, Nick. Before the Russian invasion Ukraine had a reputation for corruption. It was also a major base for cyber crime. You can see national corruption ratings back to 2000 at link . Ukraine rates as slightly less corrupt than Russia itself. To be fair things have improved a bit over the last few years, but they still rate with places like Bosnia, Algeria and Serbia.

So I wasn't listening to that demented dictator Putin, I was simply using my memory (and exaggerating, I admit). A few pro-and anti-Ukraine"goldfish" on this forum may want to try that on occasion."

Three points I would make.

1. Whilst I agree that there is a legacy of corruption across Russia's former empire, including Ukraine, I think we need to look at the path Ukraine is on and the progress they have already made in addressing this.

2. Most of the aid given by the US just isn't susceptible to corruption. They can't go and sell those Abrams and Patriots on Ebay or swap them for a yacht, despite what the Russian propagandists say and the deliveries are being monitored and audited.

3. There is even a degree of corruption in North America and Western Europe. If the criteria to be worthy of support is a total lack of all corruption then we are going to be very short of allies.

Midlander, I generally agree, hence my note that the situation is improving. However, the level of corruption is still much higher (or lower if you use the methodology on the wiki page) than most of the EU nations. I also think that sending equipment rather than cash was an intelligent decision and made sure the aid would not be diverted "for personal reasons".

Some board members seem to have a basic good/bad view of the world. Their side is all good and pure and can shame angels, so they won't believe their saints may have warts.

There is even a degree of corruption in North America and Western Europe. If the criteria to be worthy of support is a total lack of all corruption then we are going to be very short of allies.

I think that the methodology understates the levels in Australia, at least, and probably other "western developed nations"- there's three in particular I would nominate. I'm basing that on experience as well as my well-developed cynicism.

There's plenty more than a degree of corruption in the US, unfortunately.

Everyone who thinks there's no such thing as election fraud needs to read Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon B Johnson, a man who couldn't get elected to student office without stuffing the ballot box.

There's plenty more than a degree of corruption in the US, unfortunately

I think that would be true of most of the West, 9PR. But lots of practice, and complicit law enforcement and media, make it hard to bring much to light.

Our system of preferential ballots means that the main parties will always be in power. Not that there's much difference in them- both being the preserve of main-chancers, party sock-puppets and "What's in it for me?" leeches.

As noted corruption in gov't is not only found in the Ukraine. And I bet in Russia too !

Something IIRC the Ukrainians destroyed about 50% of Russian's weapons, equipment etc. Using US, NATO and even the Aussies sent vehicles, too etc.

I have said this before, so bear with me. The Russians massing on Ukraine's border took months. The US, NATO etc. knew this. But it seems the US chose to not give them all the weapons, etc. they needed. To defeat the Russian invaders. We know the reasons why …

Austin to Announce Up to $6 USD Billion Arms Commitment to Ukraine

link

Armand

By "our system," I presume you mean Australia, Dal? I'm not familiar with it, beyond the vague "Westminster-type" thing (parties, PM, bicameral, majority to govern, sovereign monarch, etc), do you vote for party lists, or something of that kind?

The parties in the States tend to be more protean than you might imagine, serving as points around which people can gather, and if you look at them over time, you often see complete flips in position- so in 1940, the Republicans were isolationists and the Democrats internationalists; by 1970, that had reversed itself, and today it has reversed itself again. Increasingly, the one is urban and the other rural, but the virulent argument over a few major issues conceals the fact that on a lot of core issues, there is a broad consensus between the parties at the national level.

Don't know if Australia is experiencing anything like the populist revolt here, but almost nothing in the country is the same as it was in 1989- except the political system. There are a lot of things driving the revolt, but the perception that everyone involved in politics was a little too comfortable and got a little too wealthy is a big part of it.

I'm not sure how you fix it all. For democracy not to be "government by sociopath," you really need people of unusual virtue. We don't seem to see those in politics much these days.

We don't seem to see those in politics much these days.

They forgot about "we the people" … Virtue, leadership, honor, integrity, common sense, etc. are all very uncommon in DC … Save for a very few …

9lb one big problem is NO term limits. We have it for the Presidency, but no other. Look at the wealth of some people in office when they entered and then currently. They did not accomplish that with their salaries. They become vested in the deep state corruption and graft of office. They pay lip service to the populace, but power and wealth becomes their ultimate ambition.

Most stay in power via bread and circuses and name recognition. In this aspect, we are no different than the Republic of Rome.

Try to get term limits through the House and Senate. They may hate each other, but they will unite against that! 😂

even the Aussies sent vehicles, too

True, Legion, but not some of the things the Ukrainians asked for. The Taipan choppers (modified NH-90 link ) and Hawkei (over-sized, over-weight and over noisy recce vehicle) being two examples where the government said "NO!". However, the Bushmaster battle taxi has proven itself again and is very popular over there.

By "our system," I presume you mean Australia, Dal? I'm not familiar with it, beyond the vague "Westminster-type" thing (parties, PM, bicameral, majority to govern, sovereign monarch, etc), do you vote for party lists, or something of that kind?

Yes, 9PR. The wonderful country of Oz. I won't try to explain our electoral system- between federal and state laws/traditions/after-beer-bad-ideas all I can say is that it's a bit of a cluster. Wiki explains it relatively easily ( link ). Or, to put it in US terms, SNAFU. Plus.

True, Legion, but not some of the things the Ukrainians asked for.

Regardless they did send some things. But I think the USA followed by NATO should send what they need when they needed it.

Three points I would make.

1. Whilst I agree that there is a legacy of corruption across Russia's former empire, including Ukraine, I think we need to look at the path Ukraine is on and the progress they have already made in addressing this.

2. Most of the aid given by the US just isn't susceptible to corruption. They can't go and sell those Abrams and Patriots on Ebay or swap them for a yacht, despite what the Russian propagandists say and the deliveries are being monitored and audited.

3. There is even a degree of corruption in North America and Western Europe. If the criteria to be worthy of support is a total lack of all corruption then we are going to be very short of allies.

Ahhhh…but we know how the corruption game works because we've already seen it.

Direct aid $$ can also be steered to into contracts that include a kick-back component to them that's all "legal." Remember Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the guy who helped get Trump impeached? He's got some sweet consulting contracts in Ukraine now. I can't say I have proof, of course, but the standard shell game perfected by the political grifter class is:

*Aid is approved by Grifter and sent to "X"
*"X" hires "consultants" or advising "Board Members" related or allied with the Grifter for direct kick-back
*"X" may also hire a "consulting firm" in the US or creates or is part of a "friendship" PAC (the American Friends of "X" or the "X"-American Society) which then steers money into influence campaigns and PAC contributions to help Grifter

All "legal"…

Oh, and non-high profile aid (stuff other than tanks and vehicles) is also much more susceptible to theft through the system. Let's say 1 Million units of MREs gets to country "X" and is now in the hands of "X"'s procurement and supply system. How much gets siphoned off to phantom units – units that don't exist except on paper? How much gets "lost to enemy action" or inspections reveal "spoilage" which writes off another %% of the non-Tank aid?

Ukraine was among the most corrupt countries in the world before the war. Do you think that goes away over night??

SBminisguy
"Ukraine was among the most corrupt countries in the world before the war. Do you think that goes away over night??"

That is setting up such a strawman. My very first point was that "I agree that there is a legacy of corruption across Russia's former empire, including Ukraine, I think we need to look at the path Ukraine is on and the progress they have already made in addressing this." So no, I don't think that has magically changed overnight, just that it is and has been improving.

I'm always curious about what it is that makes some people so determined in pushing Kremlin propaganda themes. I've come across some Communists who think Putin is somehow the heir to their heroes like Lenin and Stalin but missed out on what we now know of their brutality. Others on the right who now see Russia as a defender of Christian values – despite them installing KGB men in their puppet church, breaking every commandment and having Putin cosplay as a Village People member. Others do it out of tribal loyalty to their orange leader and others are just on the payroll. Always interesting to wonder which it is,

I'm always curious about what it is that makes some people so determined in pushing Kremlin propaganda themes.

LOL! Sure, go with that if it makes you feel good! Just ignore all of the mistakes, missteps and BS of those driving a deeply flawed war plan for a country which ultimately has no chance of the penultimate victory being trumpeted and promised!

1. Blundering into War.

This was a mistake by both sides. The West erred in violating agreements against NATO expansion and instigating a coup to install Zelensky into power. Putin should not have invaded, though keep in mind he did so with TACICT approval by the Biden Admin that the US would not react to a "limited Russian incursion" into Ukraine. Perhaps Putin thought his poorly executed Blitz on Kiev was "limited" rather than a general offensive. And not the first time a war was precipitated by a US gaffe -- the Korean War when Truman's SecState said South Korea was outside the US perimeter of defense in Asia, and the Gulf War when Bush the Elder's Ambassador Glaspie said the US had no interest in how Iraq and Kuwait resolved their issues.

2. Killing the Peace. Remember we now know that early in the conflict, before it became too serious, that Ukraine and Russia engaged in ceasefire talks facilitated by Turkey and Israel. When the US found out about it, they pressured Zelensky to break it off.

WHY?!? Why would you want to continue a war in Europe when you can end it? The war, even then, disrupted the flow of energy, grain and fertilizer causing global oil and food shocks that fall especially hard on poor nations.

3. Rushing towards the Brink: Furthermore, the longer you let the war go on, the bloodier it gets, the more difficult it is to stop and the higher the risk of runaway escalation. If the fools in charge of US strategy think they can manage a land war with a nuclear power, well these are the same geniuses who collapsed Iraq and created ISIS and expanded the Syrian Civil War, who launched a war on Libya creating another Civil War and mass migration flows, who collapsed the US presence in Afghanistan in the worst strategic defeat since Vietnam!

4. No Strategy for Victory: There is no strategy for victory, they can't even define it except for some simplistic chest beating slogans -- "In it to win it!" What's "It?" That's meaningless! "As long as it takes" Really? Another empty slogan.

In Reality the only real victory Ukraine can eke out is SURVIVAL. They do not have the man power, and we do not have deep enough pockets, to militarily defeat Russia in a war on it's OWN BORDER! Ukraine was never going to be able to take back the Donbas or Crimea, and the US and NATO have squandered countless Ukrainian and Russian lives, and billions and billions of dollars encouraging the Ukrainians to stage counter-offensives THAT HAVE ALL FAILED! Yes, dirty secret, Ukraine's attacks may have stalled Russia but that's it. Ukraine should always have been encouraged to largely adopt a defensive strategy and become a hedgehog, a porcupine that causes the Russian bear to gag and spit it out. Too tough to take.

And then a cease fire and some status of forces agreement, and a heavily defended DMZ.

5. We've created the New Axis. All of the cheap chest beating and quickly rushed sanctions were supposed to collapse the Russian economy and force Putin to retreat. It FAILED. Russia's economy has recovered and shifted EASTWARD to CHINA. The West squandered its economic leverage by stupid-a$$ shallow chest beating jingoism, and thought its own fart$ were roses. Now we have a real problem -- a Sino-Russian alliance, the one all US presidents until this one tried to prevent. Oopsie.

6. War Profiteering is Profligate. The moral justification for extending this war is not only based on a bogus unattainable goal of collapsing Russia, the war profiteering is nakedly exposed, open and in view for all to see. The US spending is staggering, over $200 USD BILLION dedicated to Ukraine, so much money so quickly we have no idea where it's all being spent. We know there are a lot of bogus kick-back contracts like the ones I described going to Vindman, and we've read stories of US aid and supplies sent to Ukraine showing up in other parts of the world. And the frenetic pace of the aid in contrast to US domestic needs is crazy. People see Congress pushing sooooo hard for more $$$$ for Ukraine and then NOTHING for border security, NOTHING for hard hit communities like East Palestine, and have to wonder what rip-off con game is going on.

So maybe stop dismissing criticism of this bloody, expensive, destabilizing war that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons as people "pushing Kremlin propaganda."

Good Day Sir!

Speaking of brinkmanship….

I've been curious. If things came to the very edge of the nuclear red line, would you trust your countries current leadership to be able to stop the taking of the final step?

A question I don't really remember anyone asking. Would make for a good poll question.

35thOVI no one in their right mind wants a nuclear war. But! Sometimes the situation gets out of control.
What will happen if the Ukrainians attack Russian nuclear weapons with American missiles? Or not even Ukrainians, but some kind of ISIS that will imitate Ukrainians? Attack on nuclear forces = start of nuclear war… And if at the same time a nuclear charge detonates (unlikely, but nonetheless possible), then the apocalypse will be inevitable.