War in Ukraine

#82,907
#82,907
StarRaider said:
no way any of this went to a certain big guy
Click to expand...


Shame on us for being dumb enough to literally send money. We should be sending them only actual products (i.e. military equipment, food, clothing, etc.).

It is kind of like giving homeless person cash who then spends it on alcohol versus buying the homeless person a meal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#82,908
#82,908
volbound1700 said:
Shame on us for being dumb enough to literally send money. We should be sending them only actual products (i.e. military equipment, food, clothing, etc.).

It is kind of like giving homeless person cash who then spends it on alcohol versus buying the homeless person a meal.
Click to expand...

You already have huge amounts of weapons on the black market, wait till its over...
 
#82,910
#82,910
#82,911
#82,911
volbound1700 said:
Shame on us for being dumb enough to literally send money. We should be sending them only actual products (i.e. military equipment, food, clothing, etc.).

It is kind of like giving homeless person cash who then spends it on alcohol versus buying the homeless person a meal.
Click to expand...

For as many times as Ukraine funding has been explained in this thread, it's criminal of you to be this ignorant.
1737572727426.png
www.gao.gov

Ukraine: Oversight of U.S. Direct Budget Support

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is causing devastating loss of life and threatening democracy in Europe. In response, the U.S. Agency for International...
www.gao.gov www.gao.gov
 
#82,912
#82,912
"Settle Now, And STOP This Ridiculous War!": Trump Threatens Tariffs As Russia Sees 'Small' Window For Deal On Ukraine | ZeroHedge

I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries.
Click to expand...

That is already being done. Orange isn't in a strong position here, pulling support (I am assuming the 90 day suspension on Ukraine funding is in effect) is really the only thing you have long term. I believe Russia has alway said they would negotiate, it was the west that didn't want that to occur i.e. F europe.

I think meat grinding continues for quite some time.

What's the solution here? Coming to the table isn't a viable solution. 🤷‍♂️

Threatening with what is already in place seems kind of silly to me and actually does the opposite... shows weakness.

44a75c8a-2a22-49f7-8b06-86a72cfb1a06_text.gif
 
#82,913
#82,913
BeardedVol said:
NATO common funding is a cost-sharing arrangement, based off of an agreed upon formula

We pay at the same level as Germany, 15.8813%

View attachment 716493
Click to expand...
but are these countries paying their targeted amounts?

www.atlanticcouncil.org

Who’s at 2 percent? Look how NATO allies have increased their defense spending since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

As the NATO Summit gets underway in Washington, 23 of 32 allies now meet the defense spending target of 2 percent of GDP.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org

"Many of those allies have historically failed to meet the NATO target, set in 2014, of allocating 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defense.."

abcnews.go.com

After Trump's claims, here's what to know about NATO member defense spending

Former President Donald Trump’s claims about NATO member contributions have raised questions and drawn rebuke from the White House and NATO's leader.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

"Only 11 of the 31 nations were predicted to spend more than 2% of their GDP on defense in 2023, according to NATO estimates published in July. Almost a decade ago, only three countries met that mark."
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#82,914
#82,914
jmacvols1 said:
but are these countries paying their targeted amounts?

www.atlanticcouncil.org

Who’s at 2 percent? Look how NATO allies have increased their defense spending since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

As the NATO Summit gets underway in Washington, 23 of 32 allies now meet the defense spending target of 2 percent of GDP.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org

"Many of those allies have historically failed to meet the NATO target, set in 2014, of allocating 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defense.."

abcnews.go.com

After Trump's claims, here's what to know about NATO member defense spending

Former President Donald Trump’s claims about NATO member contributions have raised questions and drawn rebuke from the White House and NATO's leader.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

"Only 11 of the 31 nations were predicted to spend more than 2% of their GDP on defense in 2023, according to NATO estimates published in July. Almost a decade ago, only three countries met that mark."
Click to expand...

The amount to keep this going or finding a viable solution seems like it would need to be in the trillions.

Not even sure why the U.S. is a part of NATO. 🤷‍♂️ Instead of ****ing them over, maybe we should let them run their own lives the way they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmacvols1
#82,915
#82,915
jmacvols1 said:
but are these countries paying their targeted amounts?

www.atlanticcouncil.org

Who’s at 2 percent? Look how NATO allies have increased their defense spending since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

As the NATO Summit gets underway in Washington, 23 of 32 allies now meet the defense spending target of 2 percent of GDP.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org

"Many of those allies have historically failed to meet the NATO target, set in 2014, of allocating 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defense.."

abcnews.go.com

After Trump's claims, here's what to know about NATO member defense spending

Former President Donald Trump’s claims about NATO member contributions have raised questions and drawn rebuke from the White House and NATO's leader.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

"Only 11 of the 31 nations were predicted to spend more than 2% of their GDP on defense in 2023, according to NATO estimates published in July. Almost a decade ago, only three countries met that mark."
Click to expand...

2% of GDP is what NATO members agreed to as to their own country's defense expenditures, not NATO spending, and has no effect on the NATO common budget.

Furthermore, increasing defense spending to 2% or greater doesn't necessarily translate to increased defensive capability, given that "defense spending" as NATO members have agreed to define the phrase, is very broad.

1737575717592.png
 
#82,916
#82,916
#82,917
#82,917
volbound1700 said:
Shame on us for being dumb enough to literally send money. We should be sending them only actual products (i.e. military equipment, food, clothing, etc.).

It is kind of like giving homeless person cash who then spends it on alcohol versus buying the homeless person a meal.
Click to expand...


I don't know anything about it but from was posted above it doesn't seem like this was US money getting re-routed, but was instead bribery from possible conscripts. Was this actual fraud on US $ in aid?
 
#82,918
#82,918
LSU-SIU said:
The amount to keep this going or finding a viable solution seems like it would need to be in the trillions.

Not even sure why the U.S. is a part of NATO. 🤷‍♂️ Instead of ****ing them over, maybe we should let them run their own lives the way they want.
Click to expand...

World War 2 and Soviet Union are the reasons.

NATO was initially concepted based off the failure of the Western Allies to coordinate a method to stop Germany in 1940. History of NATO - Wikipedia

The Western Defense Union was initially setup for France, UK, and the three Benelux countries to plan better defensive strategy. USA agreed to join and was invited plus USA brought friends: Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Iceland, and Portugal.

This is also when the Alliance became more Soviet focused and they eventually invited West Germany (who became Germany), Greece, Turkey, and Spain eventually joined.

Than in 1991, it grew to include a lot of Eastern Europe members that are now in today.

Alliance has kept Europe from a 1939-1945 type World War. To me, the problem with the Alliance is not integrating Russia into it. You have all the major European nations except one in it so it looks like the exclusive club is pretty much an Anti-Russia league which has been what happened.

I don't really care about defense expenditures as a lot of these nations are in it to give access to their territory for bases IMO. I really think only the major countries are the ones we are pushing: Canada, UK, France, Germany, and Italy are the big ones. Poland as well but I am fairly confident that Poland puts up the numbers. Sweden is another new player but from the data, Sweden meets 2% requirement.

Do we care whether Iceland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Netherlands, or Denmark meet the 2% threshold? These nations are so small, it would matter anyways.
 
#82,921
#82,921
BeardedVol said:
Why not?

You do realize that even in a wartime situation, you still have to fund government functions, right?
Click to expand...

Why is that our issue? As my post stated, we should be sending them only equipment and supplies, nothing else. They can borrow money to cover their government functions or have austerity.

Where we getting free money from people for any of our wars? Vietnam? Afghanistan? WW2?
 
#82,922
#82,922
lawgator1 said:
I don't know anything about it but from was posted above it doesn't seem like this was US money getting re-routed, but was instead bribery from possible conscripts. Was this actual fraud on US $ in aid?
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think this is pretty common across the board. I think the USA gets defrauded constantly by foreign powers in these setups. Not just Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#82,923
#82,923
volbound1700 said:
Why is that our issue? As my post stated, we should be sending them only equipment and supplies, nothing else. They can borrow money to cover their government functions or have austerity.

Where we getting free money from people for any of our wars? Vietnam? Afghanistan? WW2?
Click to expand...

Obligations under the "Budapest Memorandum".

It's in our best interest to not allow Russia to recreate a worse version of the Soviet Union by forcefully an allied country that was no threat to them.

No need to try to draw a false equivalence to Vietnam/Afghanistan/WW2 or any other conflict; Russia's invasion of Ukraine can stand on its own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FortSanders
#82,924
#82,924
BeardedVol said:
Obligations under the "Budapest Memorandum".

It's in our best interest to not allow Russia to recreate a worse version of the Soviet Union by forcefully an allied country that was no threat to them.

No need to try to draw a false equivalence to Vietnam/Afghanistan/WW2 or any other conflict; Russia's invasion of Ukraine can stand on its own.
Click to expand...

Well you are wrong. Looks like we sent money and you see the results. Corruption. We have 0 obligation to protect Ukraine IMO (the treaty states that Russia and USA guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty, it doesn't say we have to "defend" it). We also have 0 obligations to fund the Civil Government functions of Ukraine as you called out.

We sent weapons, provided intel, etc. We have done a lot for Ukraine and frankly, Ukraine is holding out well right now.
 
#82,925
#82,925
volbound1700 said:
Sadly, I think this is pretty common across the board. I think the USA gets defrauded constantly by foreign powers in these setups. Not just Ukraine.
Click to expand...

So he stole US aid money? I'm asking earnestly, because I don't know and it would be mighty disturbing if a Ukrainian official was able to steal a billion in U.S. aid.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top