The end?

Andy_W said:
I'm not sure what funding and supplies the USA have already committed to, but I imagine that will be hard to stop now, and obviously there is still a lot of appetite to carry that on as it's not money down the drain for the USA, it's money which is making Russia significantly weaker, which is also making other nations they're aligned with weaker. Strategically the funding makes sense to them, and a new president won't change that.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong here, but doesn't the US funding go directly to US arms manufacturers? Thus helping their own jobs & economy?
 
red_harrington said:
I could be wrong here, but doesn't the US funding go directly to US arms manufacturers? Thus helping their own jobs & economy?
Click to expand...
Yes of course it does, at least largely, but it's a good point to make, people often ignore that.

Like using a £1bn example....

I doubt the US are handing over £1bn in cash, so Ukraine can go buy arms from China and fund the Chinese economy etc, or spend it on building a new theme park. Some of it may be to buy weapons from other allies who will permit use in Russia though, but that's probably good value for the US too, they get to attack Russia indirectly, but just this way they get the deniability.

What is probably happening is they're giving them £1bn of kit, which is probably old kit due for replacing, which is no longer worth £1bn, might be worth half, and they were going to be spending money on replacing it anyway. It's like throwing away the scraps on your plate as you're full, and acting like you're Jesus.

How people get annoyed at the funding is a bit similar to how everyone got mad when the cost of HS2 went up. It wasn't money just lost to the ether, it was basically more money to pay for more work, which was effectively going to employ more people (largely in paperwork), and for a longer timeframe. The difference in money actually "lost" was probably the difference between 2% of 50bn and 2% of 100bn, only 1bn really probably lost as profits to contractors (which get taxed). The rest probably gets taxed 100 times and just rolls around the system.

Not that the extra work was necessary mind, I'm not saying it was, but was only required because of stupid red tape and pandering to nimbys.

Same applies to spending money on social housing, it's just investing in jobs, and investing in property at the same time, providing they get the rent, and all of it is getting taxed a 100 times over.
 
Andy_W said:
Yes of course it does, at least largely, but it's a good point to make, people often ignore that.

Like using a £1bn example....

I doubt the US are handing over £1bn in cash, so Ukraine can go buy arms from China and fund the Chinese economy etc, or spend it on building a new theme park. Some of it may be to buy weapons from other allies who will permit use in Russia though, but that's probably good value for the US too, they get to attack Russia indirectly, but just this way they get the deniability.

What is probably happening is they're giving them £1bn of kit, which is probably old kit due for replacing, which is no longer worth £1bn, might be worth half, and they were going to be spending money on replacing it anyway. It's like throwing away the scraps on your plate as you're full, and acting like you're Jesus.

How people get annoyed at the funding is a bit similar to how everyone got mad when the cost of HS2 went up. It wasn't money just lost to the ether, it was basically more money to pay for more work, which was effectively going to employ more people (largely in paperwork), and for a longer timeframe. The difference in money actually "lost" was probably the difference between 2% of 50bn and 2% of 100bn, only 1bn really probably lost as profits to contractors (which get taxed). The rest probably gets taxed 100 times and just rolls around the system.

Not that the extra work was necessary mind, I'm not saying it was, but was only required because of stupid red tape and pandering to nimbys.

Same applies to spending money on social housing, it's just investing in jobs, and investing in property at the same time, providing they get the rent, and all of it is getting taxed a 100 times over.
Click to expand...
It's because most people don't understand how economies work. It's like with benefits .. the government gives people benefit money who need it .. they then spend it in the local economy - which then employs more people because demand goes up. But because some see it as " .. people getting money for nothing" .. they complain about it. Yet, without it - the complainer might be out of a job themselves.
 
Rauko said:
It's because most people don't understand how economies work. It's like with benefits .. the government gives people benefit money who need it .. they then spend it in the local economy - which then employs more people because demand goes up. But because some see it as " .. people getting money for nothing" .. they complain about it. Yet, without it - the complainer might be out of a job themselves.
Click to expand...
And the people employed in the local economy get taxed.
 
RUSI

Before the US election but a site worth looking at occasionally. 100+ ex Nato senior officers and others on their associate staff.

Not predicting that Trump will pull the plug immediately, but suggesting a new NATO position.
 
borolad259 said:
Be assured, the European position is a long way from tha portrayed here.
Click to expand...

As they don't say at RUSI, whatever ...

We can't just dismiss the leading military intelligence analysis institute in Europe ( and arguably #2 globally) so readily.

But a difficult military situation, now about to have a new political view overlaid. Differing views maybe relevant.
 
Last edited:
masquesmog said:
As they don't say at RUSI, whatever ...

We can't just dismiss the leading military intelligence analysis institute in Europe ( and arguably #2 globally) so readily.

But a difficult military situation, now about to have a new political view overlaid. Differing views maybe relevant.
Click to expand...

I only say that because I get daily updates from the person who (now officially) is responsible for the EU's (military) response. That is different from the consituent nations and their individual responses, which have been mixed, for sure. But, it is early days. The intent to support Ukraine is there, from the very top (UVDL and the Commission).

But the army (EUCORPS) is nascent.

This is direct from the horse's mouth
https://twitter.com/x/status/1854839071140385155
 
Last edited:
I just hope Europe & it's leaders don't put their national interest above the continents, I'm not holding my breath - first 100 days of Trump's term should show exactly what we're in for & we, including Ukraine, can't wait until Jan to find out..
 
Well on his tour of European capitals to build a coalition of the willing, the General has, in the last couple of days, done Rome (politicos positive/Generals not so much), Paris (willing partner), met with Bri9tain's Tony Top Dog this morning ... and had a cordial meeting and the UK joined the coalition of the willing. Tony not a fan of Trump's plan. Now he's off to Berlin .... not likely to get support there with Scholtz still around. Poland is on board.

So far there's Nordics, Baltics, Poland, France and UK. Not bad.
Italy and Spain possibles.

In other news, yesterday Russia had record losses. Almost 2000 KIA.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top