Serious Question....

Does that money come from an existing approved budget? Does it have to be requested and approved by Congress? Is it money already allocated for his discretion?

What is this million talk?

We are well over $100 BILLION pledged to and paid to Ukraine by the United States in just a year.

OK.

So are the funds already budgeted? Does it require Congressional approval?

Gabster43213 said:

---

Does that money come from an existing approved budget? Does it have to be requested and approved by Congress? Is it money already allocated for his discretion?

---

MY guess is excess/unspent Emergency Covid Money. If you have not noticed the Dem Politicians keep finding other uses for the left over money. It is all now just a huge Slush Fund that they can use for what ever comes up.

Covid was just an excuse to loot the public treasury.

Congress already approved like 100B of aid to Ukraine. They're not getting cash. It's mostly the value of equipment we already had in storage, value of training. There is some cash to build a weapons factory or something in Ukraine were financing.

We and other countries give our old crap and then they all contract with us for new equipment.

Also that 1.7T package include some Ukraine aid in it too. I think it was like 20B for humanitarian aid.

Biden gonna get his spicy cut.

It's joever.

I don't know, OP? Why don't you look into this yourself?

Biden family get a 25% kickback from the commie Ukraine's. That is way communism functions.

Serious answer: they're looting the treasury. Enslaving generations yet to be born.

Much of it goes to U.S. defense contractors. Have you been watching Northrop Grumman's stock?

So the majority of this is the sunk cost of our military equipment? What is the replacement cost of this equipment or is this just Joe's way of disarming the U S military? We already left billions in military equipment in Afghanistan, along with no telling how many thousands of people who wanted freedom in Afghanistan and were sacrificed to the taliban. I haven't heard any outcries from any womens groups. Whatever their 3 letter acronyms are now.

At this point I'm convinced Zelensky has dirt on Joe, his family, or 2020 election.

fixer said:

---

At this point I'm convinced Zelensky has dirt on Joe, his family, or 2020 election.

---

Zelensky is a bought and paid for puppet regime whose primary task is to wash middle class tax dollars and then send it back to American politicians

Dan Scott said:

---

Congress already approved like 100B of aid to Ukraine. They're not getting cash. It's mostly the value of equipment we already had in storage, value of training. There is some cash to build a weapons factory or something in Ukraine were financing.

We and other countries give our old crap and then they all contract with us for new equipment.

---

So Biden is shoring up Ukranian pensions with flintlocks & biplanes instead of cash; who knew?!?!

Dan Scott said:

---

Congress already approved like 100B of aid to Ukraine. They're not getting cash. It's mostly the value of equipment we already had in storage, value of training. There is some cash to build a weapons factory or something in Ukraine were financing.

We and other countries give our old crap and then they all contract with us for new equipment.

---

100 percent false.

Just how are we paying their pensions?

CBO: Social Security headed for insolvency by 2033.

Biden: American taxpayers will pick up the tab for Ukraine's pension payments. https://t.co/fW5j4HRRJ9

— Rep. Tom Tiffany (@RepTiffany) February 18, 2023

And much of the equipment we are giving them is new; the Abrams tanks for instance have to be manufactured.

Im just glad Joe lived to tell the tale that he survived an air raid while there visiting…. Glad the could turn on the sirens for special effect while he forked over more $$$$

The tanks the English and the Germans sent were at the end of their operational life. They needed to be retrofitted or retired. They instead sent them to Ukraine and replaced them with new tanks (or plan to).

If we are sending them brand new tanks, we are idiots.

dmart90 said:

---

The tanks the English and the Germans sent were at the end of their operational life. They needed to be retrofitted or retired. They instead sent them to Ukraine and replaced them with new tanks (or plan to).

If we are sending them brand new tanks, we are idiots.

---

Have you seen our President?

We are idiots.

Some munitions are new, a few systems are recent and were worked out of deployable stocks. Most munitions were older shelf life with an approaching use by date or systems slated for near term replacement as front line equipment. The heavier equipment is almost all older second line or reserve stocks with the exception of some air defense systems. A lot of it was on the way to becoming surplus in the next decade or two. We had more anti-mine transport than anyone would take.

The abrams may be new run production because it may actually be cheaper to make a few to export spec off the line than to modify the US spec ones with DU armor packages and non-export approved systems that would have to be removed.

I still argue we are getting good value using second line equipment originally made to combat the threat of Russian aggression to allow someone else to do just that and hand them a disabling strategic defeat at very low relative cost, allowing us to focus on other strategic threats. War is wasteful, but allowing an aggressive strategic threat to obtain a more advantageous position which creates greater future threat and cost to you is arguably more wasteful.

It's cool guys, we just gave them some buttons and pocket lint so it's ackshually a really good deal

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Some munitions are new, a few systems are recent and were worked out of deployable stocks. Most munitions were older shelf life with an approaching use by date or systems slated for near term replacement as front line equipment. The heavier equipment is almost all older second line or reserve stocks with the exception of some air defense systems. A lot of it was on the way to becoming surplus in the next decade or two. We had more anti-mine transport than anyone would take.

The abrams may be new run production because it may actually be cheaper to make a few to export spec off the line than to modify the US spec ones with DU armor packages and non-export approved systems that would have to be removed.

I still argue we are getting good value using second line equipment originally made to combat the threat of Russian aggression to allow someone else to do just that and hand them a disabling strategic defeat at very low relative cost, allowing us to focus on other strategic threats. War is wasteful, but allowing an aggressive strategic threat to obtain a more advantageous position which creates greater future threat and cost to you is arguably more wasteful.

---

Once again you are just believing/reciting propaganda without any actual basis/citations. The truth is that we are depleting our stock rapidly at unsustainable rates. Are we out of 5.56 ammo, of course not. But things like artillery rounds we don't just have hundreds of millions sitting about, expiring, let alone the more expensive precision guided weapons etc. One example:

Quote:

---

"We have real constraints on defense industrial base, and on the ability of our national security apparatus to take on more than one challenge at a time," he said.

"We are producing 25,000 to 30,000 155 millimeter artillery shells a month, but the Ukrainians are estimated to be firing 90,000 a month," he said. "If they're going go on the offensive, their firing rates are going to go up. We have significantly drawn down our stocks and we can't currently replenish our own stock at these rates and ammunition expenditure. The reality is U.S. production is not going to even keep up to what the Ukrainians are firing, much less be able to backfill what we're doing for at least another couple of years."

He added:

Quote:

---

We cannot continue with the status quo, it is unsustainable, and it is risking a larger war with a nuclear-armed Russia. They need to either end or significantly scale back further aid to Ukraine. And if there is further aid, it needs to be heavily-conditioned. And if they're serious about challenges here at home and in other parts of the world like East Asia, that may have to demonstrate that they're serious about changing America's policy towards Ukraine.

---

"We have a $30 trillion national debt. We have a military that's been worn down by 20 years of endless war in the Middle East. And we have a real economic [constraints]. So we have to accept the reality that the world has changed and better prioritize our national defense resources," he said.

---

The "we aren't giving them money" turned to "we aren't giving them that much money".

dmart90 said:

---

The tanks the English and the Germans sent were at the end of their operational life. They needed to be retrofitted or retired. They instead sent them to Ukraine and replaced them with new tanks (or plan to).

If we are sending them brand new tanks, we are idiots.

---

They will be freshly remanufactured M1A2 SEPV2's, but without the latest armor (we don't have any A2's without the armor in inventory).

We don't build any 'brand new' Abrams any longer, they are all remanufactured "as-new" basically from the existing 2,500 units.

Yes, "we" are idiots.

samurai_science said:

---

The "we aren't giving them money" turned to "we aren't giving them that much money".

---

That's a matter of semantics. They are getting humanitarian aid for civilian purposes I am sure. Power grid, displaced persons, etc.

They are getting military aid, in the form of pledged funds but it is my understanding that those funds aren't generally going into some Ukrainian back account where a good portion of it would disappear. I think it's going into holding accounts as more or less credit towards purchase of a selection of war materials from the west. They get to choose what they want or need but don't get to take possession of the cash. Rather, they get to direct where the donor transfers the funds on their behalf. Not as easy to corrupt, in theory at least.

Yes, the war is consuming some parts of active stocks, but those NATO and US stock levels are predicated on a theoretical war with…Russia. Guess who is in an actual war and is dealing with all they can handle and wants no part in a wider war with NATO?

If that ammo is being consumed in a war against Russia but it is a former Soviet republic providing the soldiers, isn't that a terrific bargain? Those Russian tanks or vehicles or troop formations were exactly what they were largely built to oppose, tangent asymmetric gulf wars aside. If that's how they are used, then no problem. Who else is NATO going to fight?

Almost none of the 200k dead you are celebratory about funding as expendable deaths were even alive when the Soviet Union existed. They were almost all 17 to 25 years old.

MAGA opposed to the Military Industrial Complex. Just like the Jacobins.

Putin and his enablers made that choice. They could walk away today and end this.

And you could quit acting like this is some great bargain of death by subhumans.

I'm Slavic in ethnicity. I don't see any value in the war. I do see an opportunity to have it end more quickly and decisively in an outcome that sharply discourages it from being repeated. Russia is the aggressor and Russia can stop this any time it pleases by entering negotiations and yielding up the territory it has taken.

Russia has a poor reputation for treatment of conquered regions and peoples. See now who they are mostly sending in as cannon fodder: ethnic outliers.

I really don't understand the odd stained effort to equivocate Russia out of responsibility for starting this aggressive war, as if Ukraine is equally guilty of the war in defending itself. It is some interesting victim blaming.

nortex97 said:

---

Almost none of the 200k dead you are celebratory about funding as expendable deaths were even alive when the Soviet Union existed. They were almost all 17 to 25 years old.

---

The absolute lack of concern for the thousands already dead and untold thousands more to come is disgusting.

Corporal Punishment said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Almost none of the 200k dead you are celebratory about funding as expendable deaths were even alive when the Soviet Union existed. They were almost all 17 to 25 years old.

---

---

Yes, used and killed by Putin and his oligarchs. It is a terrible thing. If only Putin would call it off.

nortex97 said:

---

And you could quit acting like this is some great bargain of death by subhumans.

---

Ending it quickly by giving one side the decisive advantage is best, and do you ethically give that to the aggressor, encouraging future aggression by rewarding it? If there's going to be a war, and Putin has determined there will be, it is in the best interests for Americans to achieve a strategic outcome that benefits us. Russian strategic doctrine very much still considers NATO and the United States as strategic competitors and opposition, just because we exist bordering their desired sphere of influence. (Alaska and Europe).

nortex97 said:

---

And you could quit acting like this is some great bargain of death by subhumans.

---

What outcome do you desire? What solution do you propose is best?