• Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets. Assets that were constructed to fight China and Russia at the same time if needed. They were literally built and maintained in waiting for a fight with Russia. Sending them to make Russia weaker lowers the stockpile we need to maintain. The number of dollars sent over isn’t real dollars, it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced). We were literally spending money to keep them ready in case they were needed, and now they’re needed and we no longer have to spend money on them.

      We are spending some new money on aid and things, but most of the military stuff is stuff we already had kicking around, not new spending to build new stuff to send over. Also, sure we’ll have to replace some, but we would anyway as technology advances, and it also won’t be to the same level as Russia is weaker.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced).

        Arguably much of it should be valued at negative monetary value as with Ukraine taking it the US won’t have to pay to decommission it. Especially ammunition gets expensive (tanks you can just dump in a desert somewhere).

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets.

        Err… what? Who paid for those ‘assets’? Those ‘assets’ can’t be liquidated for capital?

        Lol, 35 upvotes. Man, this next generation sucks. Not a critical thinker among you.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, the assets can’t really just be liquidated for capital. They’re military equipment, and they’ve lost value over time anyway so the real value is less than the listed price. What can be done is giving them to another country for promises in the future.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        49
        ·
        1 year ago

        It absolutely is.

        And it’s frustrating watching the extent to which our country is neglected in order to pursue ventures like this over, and over, and over again.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          39
          ·
          1 year ago

          Buddy, I hate to break it to you, but our government neglected us long before this war and will continue to neglect us long after.

          • Lyricism6055@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Idk tbh. We are all by ourselves over here. I do wish we could at least reconsider military spending in the US. But now they seem damned and determined to fight a war with russia and china.

            Personally I like how we are involved in this war. We send equipment which we can then 100% determine the efficacy of. It doesn’t cost any American lives. I do also recognize that our country seems to be crumbling

        • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I understand, unfortunately our country’s democracy is fucking broken and has been catering to corporate interests for the majority of its history. However whether we choose to fund Ukraine or not this will not change, ultimately we need to reform the US government so that the citizens get true representation.

          • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, I get that.

            The 98% of voters who choose the party line every time do not give a fuck about anything other than what they’re told by their favorite news broadcast, and the news broadcasts always make the war seem like the most important issue. I just don’t think it should be too much to ask that people take a moment to think about the fact that the neglect of our own people in favor of warmongering (and we are warmongering, even if we don’t have bodies in Russia) has real, tangible negative effects here. And by voting pro-war every two years, all of them are contributing to it, whether they claim to be anti-war or not.

    • WashedOver@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      In some ways it’s a great move beyond the human cost, Russian uses up their military personnel, equipment, and resources while NATO and the US commit some of their resources and older equipment to the cause but nothing new and no losses of people beyond the Ukrainians in theory for the most part.

      I know many in the US think the Russians are good guys now (Patton is probably doing cartwheels in his grave at the thought, but Nazis are good now too so maybe not) but if there is going to be future conflict, the Russian machine will be spent and tired which will help some.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can always tax the rich to solve our problems.

      It’s not that the money isn’t there, lol. We just choose not to use it.