Current Russia Ukraine tensions

[dilettante]

To gain support for new kit, manufacturing is spread across as many states as is physically possible, such that there are a large number of members of Congress that will be able to show increased money for their states if they support the procurement.

Sound good. Turns out to not really be the case.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Release...cal-year-2021/

[FunkyDexter]

Isn't the talk now about the billions the US is sending to Ukraine?

Interestingly, though, this is a phenomenally cheap way for the USA to undermine one of it's primary global adversaries. So far the US has sent roughly $50 billion to Ukraine. It spent over a Trillion in Iraq against a MUCH smaller adversary.

You wouldn't believe it from the rhetoric but the USA is getting a bargain.

[Niya]

Now that makes sense. It's all part of the game which is ultimately about global influence and economic/military power.

I can't stand that a lot of people think the US is actually spending that kind of money out of the goodness of their hearts to help out the "poor Ukrainians being unjustly persecuted by big bad Russia". These kinds of narratives are what frustrate me about this whole thing.

[FunkyDexter]

That's not what I said at all. But listening to what people actually say rather than what you'd like them to say because it's convenient to your world view isn't in your toolkit so...

The reason the USA and Europe are sending aid to Ukraine is because they saw a nation that felt a lot like themselves get invaded by an aggressive neighbour. "felt a lot like themselves" does a lot of work in that sentence and explains why they didn't feel a need to intervene in Syria, Georgia etc. It's the reason we put boots on the ground in the former Yugoslavia but put our fingers in our ears when there was genocide in Rwanda. We'll only get involved in a conflict outside "the West" if there's something concrete to gain - typically oil. But we've never really had a problem getting involved when the adversaries look like us.

That doesn't stop them from getting a bargain in the meantime, though, and a quick look at the figures should stop people whining about how we're sending all this money abroad.

[Niya]

That's not what I said at all.

You said this:-

Interestingly, though, this is a phenomenally cheap way for the USA to undermine one of it's primary global adversaries.

Which I agreed with which I further expanded into the idea of all this being about influence etc.:-

It's all part of the game which is ultimately about global influence and economic/military power.

So I don't see what the contention is here:-

But listening to what people actually say rather than what you'd like them to say because it's convenient to your world view isn't in your toolkit so...

So even when I agree with you, you still feel the need to take swipes at me? What is happening here?

[dilettante]

Festival! Festival! It is the will of Landru!

[FunkyDexter]

It's all part of the game which is ultimately about global influence and economic/military power.

This was your projection, not what I said. You were not agreeing with what I said.

You like feigning ignorance and misunderstanding to avoid engaging with the actual point someone's making when you find it inconvenient but I'll try one more time:-

The USA's and Europe's motivation is as I described in post 1244. That it also provides an incredibly cheap way of undermining a geopolitical rival is a happy side effect which is, I have no doubt, not lost on them. Your assertion differs in that you view the side effect as the motivation. So, no, we are not in agreement.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Sound good. Turns out to not really be the case.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Release...cal-year-2021/

I don't see anything in that document that contradicts what I said. That is looking at total spending by state, which includes payroll costs, small procurements, and things like that which don't get spread around. It also talks about large contracts, which go to large companies. The DoD doesn't pay subcontractors or suppliers, directly, so how the parts of a jet are spread around, won't be reflected in a document like that.

[Shaggy Hiker]

As long as everybody is being all serious, let me comment on the German Leopard tank.

Germany has a history of naming tanks after carnivorous cats. They didn't seem to start at lion, but rather with Tiger, then Panther. Basically, they are working their way down the size of cat. From this we can predict: Once they develop the tabby tank...watch out!

[FunkyDexter]

Well they had a frickin' enormous tank in WW2 and called it a mouse. They planned on building one the size of a house, complete with a battery of goddam battleship guns and were going to call it the rat. Contrary to the stereotype, the Germans have a highly ironic sense of humour.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I was deliberately leaving those points out, because they didn't help the joke.

[TysonLPrice]

As long as everybody is being all serious, let me comment on the German Leopard tank.

Germany has a history of naming tanks after carnivorous cats. They didn't seem to start at lion, but rather with Tiger, then Panther. Basically, they are working their way down the size of cat. From this we can predict: Once they develop the tabby tank...watch out!

That would be catastrophic for their strong image. There would be catcalls at parades like "p***ies!.