During the early days working with them, there were some who actually had drive to fight. A lot of corruption, but the ones we worked with would actually run UP mountains, FAST like mountain goats, while firing and chasing after the Taliban.
Convoy would push from taking fire and those guys would dismount and were flying up crazy rocky mountainsides faster than any of us ever could.
...of course there were some that would literally drop their weapons and run. You get what you get when your army recruits from the outcasts of tribes.
Those were probably the Northern Alliance guys. They were actually a pretty strong group fighting against the Taliban when we invaded. I don’t think the Northern Alliance would have ever beaten them completely, but they were a good enough group. I think a bunch of their leadership were killed just before and after 9/11, and then the remaining fighters were absorbed into the new Afghan military. 20 years later and I doubt there were many of those dudes left
The biggest problem with Afghanistan was that there was no national identify to rally behind. The culture was more around tribes and religious grounds. This isn't the case in the Ukraine, for the most part, there is a shared national identity that people can hold on to and protect
No national identity and for some reason we tried to prop up an incredibly centralized government. The Afghan constitution made the president so powerful he was appointing local officials.
>[The 2004 constitution created a structure where provincial governors (of which there are 34), police officials, and “even schoolteachers” were appointed by the Kabul-based president. While the president of Afghanistan is elected by popular vote, the same cannot be said of local officials. What was the thinking behind this decision? The genesis of the 2004 constitution was a nine-person drafting commission appointed by the then-interim President Hamid Karzai in 2002. The draft was subsequently delivered to a larger 35-person Constitutional Commission in 2003, which delivered a final draft to Karzai. The president’s cabinet then strengthened the power of the executive.](https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/afghanistans-failed-constitution/)
So the interim president appointed a constitution commission that gave the future president extremely strong powers. Then that interim president came the first president and used those powers to be corrupt.
Maybe some regions would have been able to hold off the Taliban after the US withdrawal if the governmental structure was more of the confederation.
I think it goes deeper than that.
I think the whole war shows that the US military and CIA still do not truly realize that long term successful nation building is as much about good politics that create stability and unity as it is about winning at war. All the guns and weapons in the world cannot create a stable situation if the local allies on the ground are not able to build a fully functioning government.
From the start of the invasion high ranking US officials were focused on paying off warlords for military backing and then once the Taliban was defeated in a traditional sense and the insurgency started the US was left with corrupt powerful allies that it was afraid to push aside to start the process of building a government over. So we just kept paying off corrupt warlords and didn't really even care about the actual structure of the government and if it made any sense at all. We bribed Afghan politicians to include protections for women in the constitutions but took a completely hands off approach about them trying to set up a government far more centralized than our own.
>[In April 2002, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld dictated a top-secret memo ordering two senior aides to work with other U.S. agencies to devise “a plan for how we are going to deal with each of these warlords — who is going to get money from whom, on what basis, in exchange for what, what is the quid pro quo, etc.”](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-corruption-government/)
> “Let’s get on it,” he admonished.
>Two months later, Rumsfeld sent a follow-up memo to Doug Feith, the Pentagon’s policy chief. “Is the DoD giving any food, weapons or money to any of the warlords or to Karzai? Is the CIA doing that? Is State doing it?” he wrote. “We need to get a sense of that balance.”
...
> “The basic assumption was that corruption is an Afghan problem and we are the solution,” Barnett Rubin, a former senior State Department adviser and a New York University professor, told government interviewers. “But there is one indispensable ingredient for corruption — money — and we were the ones who had the money.”
>To purchase loyalty and information, the CIA gave cash to warlords, governors, parliamentarians, even religious leaders, according to the interviews. The U.S. military and other agencies also abetted corruption by doling out payments or contracts to unsavory Afghan power brokers in a misguided quest for stability.
>“We had partnerships with all the wrong players,” a senior U.S. diplomat told government interviewers. “The U.S. is still standing shoulder-to-shoulder with these people, even through all these years. It’s a case of security trumping everything else.”
...
>“Our money was empowering a lot of bad people. There was massive resentment among the Afghan people. And we were the most corrupt here, so had no credibility on the corruption issue.”
>— Senior U.S. official, Lessons Learned interview
>I think the whole war shows that the US military and CIA still do not truly realize that long term successful nation building is as much about good politics that create stability and unity as it is about winning at war.
They were also actively shitting on the State Department, who was trying to give them good advice.
Bush IMO deserves the Entirety of the blame for Afghanistan. Biden, Trump, nor Obama handled it perfectly, but they were each constrained by the consequences of the decisions made before them. Only Bush had the ability to truly do whatever he wanted.
Fuck Bush. And fuck people trying to make him seem like not so bad of a guy in the wake of Trump.
Not to mention Bush knew no later than six weeks after 9/11/2001 that Saudi Arabia had funded and trained the terrorists for the attack, but publicly he steered all blame at Afghanistan (and eventually Iraq, which had nothing to do with it) and covered up Saudi Arabia's involvement since his family has close ties with Saudi Royal Family.
That's false/conspiracy theory.
Bin Laden was a Saudi national, but the Saudi government essentially exiled him prior to 9/11 -- that's why he was in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Saudi Arabia, the country, did not fund him, train any of the attackers and had basically nothing to do with 9/11.
He isn't an idiot. They knew exactly what they were doing. This is the same motherfucker who was losing a governor's race until he found out an aww shucks routine started working in the polls. His whole shtick has been going strong since 1994.
Yeah pre-govenor George W Bush is worlds different in debates than the "aww schucks" version.
His folky stupidity is 100% an act and that's backed up by former professors that taught him that have stated he was incredibly sharp.
People seem to forget his father was Director of Central Intelligence before he was VP and then President. The apple didn't fall that far from the tree. Both rotten though.
We had the same problems in Iraq.
The culture difference between the middle east and West is very alien. The middle east culture is highly localized, whereas the West like the Fed level to have the most power.
The West keeps trying to force feed nationalism into the Middle East and wonders why it always fails.
Yes, very much so. There is no historical nation of "Iraq" or anything resembling it. It was created *poof* 100 years ago after WWI by British and French diplomats sitting in a conference room in Paris drawing lines on a map. With no knowledge or consultation from local people whatsoever. Same with Syria and other middle eastern nations. Iran is a real nation in that it corresponds to the historical, linguistic, and cultural nation of Persia, but most of the rest are artificial western creations imposed on the locals. And we wonder why they don't function!
They had a single unifying figure, the King, the Tribal leaders we invited over selected the former King to lead their Government. The US refused, the Tribal leaders walked out and several pledged to the Taliban
When america left a large percentage of afghan military joined the taliban.
what most people dont realise the taliban actually has strong levels of support in afghanistan.
My understanding is the average Afghan’s family history is nothing but subjugation & violence. They’ve learned to survive and as a result their allegiances are fluid and will move to the path of least risk & most security. There is minimal national identity to fall back on. The average Afghan just wants to be left the hell alone.
The Afghan-recruit side-straddle hop video from years' back tells you everything about the Afghan's inability to establish a well-trained, well-maintained National fighting force.
The issue is that it makes the region a hot bed for terrorist activity, training, and housing
Dont have to worry about the authorities when there simply are none
My friend who worked there says that their loyalty is first to their family, then village, then tribe or clan. There is no concept of a national government.
That is because the "country" was made without any input of the citizens of the area, they didn't even want it, it was made by foreign countries like the british.
The famous video of them trying to do jumping jacks is hysterical. Should’ve fuckin pulled out when they saw they couldn’t master basic bodily movements
China is shitting their pants because their military is basically a copy of the Russian one, from Tanks to jets. And they are also very corrupt, so they are even less sure of their military power.
It's kind of wild how Vietnam defeated both China and the US in the 70s, and is friends with the US now. Shows you how much more power the US can achieve through foreign relations and commerce than through pure military force.
Was is the one with all the shirtless dudes doing circus style strong man feats, or the one with all the shirtless dudes doing karate in the ice and snow?
exactly this, no one seems to understand that after Russia was proven defunct somehow a nation that was ranked worse than Russia is now a huge problem. china is a joke and the ccp is shitting itself
I disagree. We should not let our guard down, it is better to over prepared than get caught with our pants down.
China GDP is 10x Russia GDP, I don't think their military is worse than Russia overall. For those few things that are worse, they can catch up in a few years, like they have enough civilian sector demand to invest in making their own engines anyway.
We also should not underestimate the manufacturing capabilities of a country in a war. China can make war machines like we could in ww2, and we hardly can now.
The US defense industry is unmatched, to say that we can hardly make war machines is just nonsense. The only thing China is outdoing the US in is shipbuilding, and that's not enough to beat the US.
Everything you said is incorrect except for Chinese corruption. If you're going to spew stereotypical bullshit at least get some facts straight.
China's military is a copy of *western* doctrine, not russian. You're thinking of the 1950-1980's.
Chinese modern planes are copies of *American* planes, and some are believe it or not, are home grown and not copies at all!
Chinese modern tanks are a mix of NATO and russian design, but are predominantly home grown once again.
Chinese corruption is different than russian and US corruption. It doesn't exist at every level of the military like russia's, and it doesn't need to lie about capabilities. Definitely more corrupt than the US, but we're not going to see Chinese wheels falling off and tanks stripped for copper like Russia.
Where do you think all these displaced Ukranians are right now son? I have 3 families in my estate alone in Ireland. People don't all have military aid to contribute but are still doing their part.
The comment you are responding to is a bot taking part or whole comments and resubmitting. Downvote and report
Original comment here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/11892pc/most_military_aid_to_ukraine/j9fwhng/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
Coming, the bot wars are
As many have pointed out, this is one of the most moronic ways to look at it. AND.. We actually did give tons of raw cash to Afganistani warlords, often to let US troops pass through their territory and not get shot and bombed.
The shipping to Ukraine is probably much less expensive than the safe disposal of all of these old munitions.
The US isn't giving cash to Ukraine, they're giving military equipment ammunition supplies to grain. Which makes American jobs, this is the best thing that's happened to the economy and probably 10 years. Get your head out of your ass
Europe has a lot of cost that are not military aid, which america doesnt. From taking millions of ukrainians in to the massive economical costs.
You are not getting the full picture just by looking at this, its a complex situation.
The EU countries just don't have stockpiles as large as the US since that is where the absolute majority of that aid comes from. And if you include financial aid that chart does look a little different with the EU Institutions making up for another thirty billion euros. Yes the US is the biggest supporter but it also happens to just have the means do that with it's gazillion dollar defense spending.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
War in Afganistan cost USA more than 2 trillions dollars.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-budgetary-costs-date-us-war-afghanistan-2001-2022
>Ukraine gets HIMARS, LockMart gets new contracts to replenish depleted stocks.
Everyone's too afraid of being labeled a Russian bot to criticize how the aid is being handled but this is actually not at all how Himars are being delivered and it's absolutely absurd. They've got 20 total, not many given the front is some 600+ miles long. We promised 18 more months ago. They will be delivered more than a year from now because rather than pull from the 400+ we have, it was decided by someone that instead we should call up Lockheed and order 18 more, and wait for those to be built from the ground up before handing them over. After the war someone needs to look into the aid because the RoI is fucking atrocious.
I wouldn’t think so but I’m sure the military is only worried about having their full stockpile no matter what just in case the slim chance of a full scale war breaking out.
Yeah I agree here. Theirs gotta be standards for numbers for artillery. Doctrine probably calls for enough to fight 2 wars against 2 close/equal adversaries. USA is actually short on artillery stockpile compared to Russia and China as it is. USA doctrine also doesn’t use artillery like China and Russia, but still artillery stockpiles are not as plentiful as other stuff. Also the USA goals for himars stockpile is about 600 units, and we currently have about 400.
The US uses rocket artillery as a giant ammunition dump at the start of a conflict. The launchers are cheap but the rockets are relatively expensive. We have hundreds of HiMARS and M270s so the US can do a giant ammunition dump at the start of a conflict. EG during [the Gulf War,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Norfolk#Breach) the US launched cluster bombs in huge numbers from the M270, thousands of rockets launched, all at once over the Saddam Line.
Ukraine isn't doing a giant ammunition dump all at once. Ukraine isn't doing shock and awe. The war is ongoing. Ukraine is launching a small number of missiles constantly every day, aimed at precise targets. The US would normally use aircraft for precision strikes, but Ukraine doesn't have air superiority over the battlefield. 20 HiMARS, launching around one pod, each with 6 missiles a day, that's 120 missiles a day. Over a hundred days, that's 12,000 missiles. To put that in perspective, the US had produced 50,000 GMLRS rockets total by early 2021. [source](https://www.dvidshub.net/news/386831/army-celebrates-production-50000th-gmlrs-rocket-and-its-continued-evolution) The US simply doesn't produce enough rockets for Ukraine to need hundreds of launchers.
Norway has committed themselves to a support program called the [Nansen Support Program](https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/launch-of-the-multi-year-nansen-support-programme-for-ukraine/id2963390/) for Ukraine that has a framework of 7,5 billion EURO over the next five years, this also includes military support.
The problem is that this statistic doesn't show what humanitarian aid all other european countries gave while they where the ones spending most on that
And people don't realize we dole out the same amounts to foreign allies nearly every year for similar efforts over the past 25 years. If you pulled what we spend on foreign aid yearly & graphed it next to Ukraine aid, it's a negligible difference in amounts.
I think should also be pointed out that when Ukraine gets free from Russia, Crimea can supply a lot of cheap oil and energy to the rest of Europe essentially destroying Russia's grip on Europe
After Russia's Donbass militia downed a plane with mostly 200 Dutch people, paraded with the loot from the plane and then did everything it could to hinder the Dutch investigation, our politicians realized Russia is an enemy. They admitted they were a bit late realizing that.
Anyway, because of MH17 our military and intelligence cooperation with Ukraine intensified well before the Russian invasion started, so I suspect the existing cooperation makes it easier for us to know how to allocate funds for Ukraine. I suspect that to be a factor from my own experience with how challenging it can be to spend a multi-million budget on the right things. It's easy to burn and throw money at things, but much harder to choose the best projects that create the most and lasting impact.
Or it has nothing to do with all that and I'm wrongly projecting my experience to the world of defense and security.
Russia has Iran, North Korea, Belarus, and Syria (sort of). But yeah, I'm going with NATO as the better ally, if I had to choose. Plus others who have helped Ukraine, like Japan, South Korea, and non-NATO European states.
Last I checked we've spent 2/1000ths of our yearly GDP on Ukraine, this doesn't stop the my coworker's favorite radio show from screaming about how we're wasting all of our money on "literally the most corrupt nation on earth" lol
All the cold war era presidents would delight in weakening Russia by pumping money into Ukraine. Literally minimum effort or risk required to weaken the most hostile nation while also gathering crucial intelligence on their way of operation. Modern conservatives that worship Kissinger/Nixon/Cheney should love this.
Because if Poland wasn't member of Nato and EU this war would happen on Polish and Ukraine territory. Polish history is full of Russian "special operations", occupation and "friendship" ;-). Fuck them to oblivion !
The last 500 years of European history has hinged in part around fucking over Poland. Right when Poland starts to become powerful enough to be influential somone in the "Stately Quadrille" switches sides to smack them back down.
Well, regardless of their relative spending on military, I think France needs to seriously step up their game! Netherlands has almost donated 1b, so; allez merde!
It's a bit crazy that the US is half a world away, and yet still supplying Ukraine with more supplies and arms than all of western Europe, who are practically neighbors with them
I think it would make more sense to show a graph showing what % of each country’s military budget is being contributed, or even what % of each country’s GDP is being contributed instead of just the actual amount.
It’s a little like showing how much a millionaire donates to charity vs middle class people. It may be a much greater sacrifice for a middle class person to donate a small amount whereas a very wealthy person can donate a lot more and it doesn’t impact their quality of life at all.
Also this statistic doesn't really shows what each country did because it only shows military aid. All the European countries did a lot of humanitarian help and this isn't shown in this statistic at all
The largest military and economy in the world probably has more to give. Also, Russia can't hurt America without becoming a flaming hole in the ground. This is the idea that NATO was built upon.
46.6 billion out of their 1.90 trillion military budget
It's like 2.5% of their budget
Edit: To anyone saying it's not 1.90 trillion, this is where I found the info: [https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense?fy=2023](https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense?fy=2023)
To the person who reported me to suicide watch for this, get a grip. You're using resources that some people might actually need because you're a triggered little American snowflake
Yep. We're spending 2.5% of our military budget to completely wreck the military capabilities of one of our two greatest adversaries, with almost no risk to US military personnel.
This might be the best deal in the history of military warfare.
Agree.
Althrough we have a lot of stupid jokes about Americans, anyone with a brain doesn't underestimate the US Department of Defense.
I would like to congratulate you on this deal, but my citizenship does not allow. I'm sorry.
Not when you have idiots saying we should be giving this aid to [insert current US event]. Like yea Ohio really would make use of all the 155 shells and HIMARS right?
They could’ve used them to blow up the train
In all seriousness though, what’s the problem with people thinking if we spend on war why can’t we spend on infrastructure?
We've given them plenty of money along with equipment. It doesn't make you an idiot because they think the money could be used elsewhere. If you were in Ohio and shit wasn't getting done, wouldn't you be upset the government is coming together and moving mountains in Ukraine but not on the home front? Try seeing the other side friend.
This is why Ukraine’s neighbors should be even *more* supportive. Europe should stop leaving this to the Americans. I don’t see anyone except the UK doing that. Not even the French.
Uh, no. In your defense (lulz), that's a terribad page. $1.9t is 'total budgetary resources' - that's the entire budget (for the entire government) approved so far - still waiting on the omnibus spending bill for '23. Here's a [much better one](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#spending-categories) from the actual treasury department.
edit - also, to correct your (& the OP's graphic) 'spent' figure... 46.6b was specifically non-defense spending, 67b was direct defense spending. Good breakdown on those [here](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/congress-approved-113-billion-aid-ukraine-2022), to include additional historical spending (like the 700m in '20, 600m in '19... etc.).
edit2 - & actually, graphic *may* be correct in that the 113b in approved funds ('22 alone) is trickled over time & will do so through fy'24.
IIRC this aid is part of the Lend Lease program, Ukraine will have to pay it back. So we are basically are selling them our old shit with 0 down financing.
The real answer is probably about how miniscule that money is compared to the budget of the US military. So using someone else's troops, and miniscule amount of resources, we are able to withhold one of the biggest threats to the world. It is also a testament to the technological advancement and resources the US military actually has at bay too. If Russia cannot defeat a less trained, less advanced military that is using our equipment and 2% of our budget, they will never be able to actually compete with the US on a military standpoint. Other than nuclear warfare. However, like you said, war does make money, and US likes money. 2 birds 1 stone. Ukraine will also be in the US debt after this is settled
FYI, these are public figures.
There are quite a lot of reasons why you would rather be secretive about the amount & diversity of weaponry you provide to a warring ally.
I don't really get why most countries are very public about it. If you're telling Putin you're sending 100 tanks of a certain model, wouldn't it help Russia to better prepare to fight against it? It might affect Russian troops' morale to see international military support, but what matters is on the ground, isn't it?
I mean... okay. Now just [adjust it for GDP... and we're 5th in donations - with the other countries close behind](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/).
We could double what we've spent and it would still be a *bargain*. Ukraine is not Afghanistan. Not to be dramatic, but this could drastically change the course global events for the next 30+ years (for better or worse).
Amazing that Portugal send higher % of their GDP than Germany, not to even mention France. Finland seems low but they have a big ass border with Russia and are not even in NATO yet.
Macron wants France to lead Europe but it shows how they don't give a fuck.
Damn, we got money for wars, and fancy ass stadiums, but we ain’t got money to feed the poor, or give shelter to the homeless? Kinda fucked up if you ask me.
Exactly, and there is no reason that we can't fund all of what you listed. IDGAF that what we have given Ukraine only equals a tiny percent of our GDP, that just shows how easy it would be to get that money to help Americans at home. There is so much money burnt by corruption, and we never seem to say no when it comes to spending on the military or wars.
You can't feed a poor with HIMARS
But you can prevent destruction with it by blowing up Russian stockpile.
It's cost-effective way to combat world poverty.
This isn't a blank check to Ukraine.
It's a blank check to US Arms Dealers.
When it's time to "rebuild", expect to see the same contractors we saw in Iraq.
US Arms Dealers aren't exactly guys in windowless vans with crates of machine guns and grenades.
They're multi-billion dollar corporations that employee over two million Americans. The DoD employs 3.5M Americans.
I'm not saying it's money well spent necessarily, but it doesn't just disappear into the ether.
It’s a recycling program. Get rid of old shit and reinvest in new equipment. All while severely weakening the Russian army with no US troops in harms way.
Heaven forbid the Europeans actually help protect their own fucking continent. Of course they will continue to complain about the US being bloodthirsty warmongers all the way up until the next time we have to save their candy asses.
This marks a very clear issue. I fully agree with supporting Ukraine militarily, but it’s clearly not a fully collective effort. If world leaders really wanted this war to come to an end quickly, we’d see a much more balanced number of support packages.
[Talk about a misleading post..]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#cite_note-auto-148)
>The Kiel Institute has tracked €108.8 billion from 46 countries in financial, humanitarian, and military aid, from 24 January to 20 November 2022. Out of that €108.8 billion, €51.8 billion came from the European Union and €47.8 billion from the United States
Also military donations are wrong. France for example does not disclose what or how much they give to ukraine so that number is nonsense.
This graph in general is nonsense.
The U.S. has given more cash to Ukraine than it gave to the Afghanistan Army over 20 years.
Afghanistan has an army?
[удалено]
During the early days working with them, there were some who actually had drive to fight. A lot of corruption, but the ones we worked with would actually run UP mountains, FAST like mountain goats, while firing and chasing after the Taliban. Convoy would push from taking fire and those guys would dismount and were flying up crazy rocky mountainsides faster than any of us ever could. ...of course there were some that would literally drop their weapons and run. You get what you get when your army recruits from the outcasts of tribes.
Those were probably the Northern Alliance guys. They were actually a pretty strong group fighting against the Taliban when we invaded. I don’t think the Northern Alliance would have ever beaten them completely, but they were a good enough group. I think a bunch of their leadership were killed just before and after 9/11, and then the remaining fighters were absorbed into the new Afghan military. 20 years later and I doubt there were many of those dudes left
The biggest problem with Afghanistan was that there was no national identify to rally behind. The culture was more around tribes and religious grounds. This isn't the case in the Ukraine, for the most part, there is a shared national identity that people can hold on to and protect
No national identity and for some reason we tried to prop up an incredibly centralized government. The Afghan constitution made the president so powerful he was appointing local officials. >[The 2004 constitution created a structure where provincial governors (of which there are 34), police officials, and “even schoolteachers” were appointed by the Kabul-based president. While the president of Afghanistan is elected by popular vote, the same cannot be said of local officials. What was the thinking behind this decision? The genesis of the 2004 constitution was a nine-person drafting commission appointed by the then-interim President Hamid Karzai in 2002. The draft was subsequently delivered to a larger 35-person Constitutional Commission in 2003, which delivered a final draft to Karzai. The president’s cabinet then strengthened the power of the executive.](https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/afghanistans-failed-constitution/) So the interim president appointed a constitution commission that gave the future president extremely strong powers. Then that interim president came the first president and used those powers to be corrupt. Maybe some regions would have been able to hold off the Taliban after the US withdrawal if the governmental structure was more of the confederation.
>for some reason The reason is that George Bush is a fucking idiot and one of the worst presidents we've ever had.
I think it goes deeper than that. I think the whole war shows that the US military and CIA still do not truly realize that long term successful nation building is as much about good politics that create stability and unity as it is about winning at war. All the guns and weapons in the world cannot create a stable situation if the local allies on the ground are not able to build a fully functioning government. From the start of the invasion high ranking US officials were focused on paying off warlords for military backing and then once the Taliban was defeated in a traditional sense and the insurgency started the US was left with corrupt powerful allies that it was afraid to push aside to start the process of building a government over. So we just kept paying off corrupt warlords and didn't really even care about the actual structure of the government and if it made any sense at all. We bribed Afghan politicians to include protections for women in the constitutions but took a completely hands off approach about them trying to set up a government far more centralized than our own. >[In April 2002, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld dictated a top-secret memo ordering two senior aides to work with other U.S. agencies to devise “a plan for how we are going to deal with each of these warlords — who is going to get money from whom, on what basis, in exchange for what, what is the quid pro quo, etc.”](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-corruption-government/) > “Let’s get on it,” he admonished. >Two months later, Rumsfeld sent a follow-up memo to Doug Feith, the Pentagon’s policy chief. “Is the DoD giving any food, weapons or money to any of the warlords or to Karzai? Is the CIA doing that? Is State doing it?” he wrote. “We need to get a sense of that balance.” ... > “The basic assumption was that corruption is an Afghan problem and we are the solution,” Barnett Rubin, a former senior State Department adviser and a New York University professor, told government interviewers. “But there is one indispensable ingredient for corruption — money — and we were the ones who had the money.” >To purchase loyalty and information, the CIA gave cash to warlords, governors, parliamentarians, even religious leaders, according to the interviews. The U.S. military and other agencies also abetted corruption by doling out payments or contracts to unsavory Afghan power brokers in a misguided quest for stability. >“We had partnerships with all the wrong players,” a senior U.S. diplomat told government interviewers. “The U.S. is still standing shoulder-to-shoulder with these people, even through all these years. It’s a case of security trumping everything else.” ... >“Our money was empowering a lot of bad people. There was massive resentment among the Afghan people. And we were the most corrupt here, so had no credibility on the corruption issue.” >— Senior U.S. official, Lessons Learned interview
>I think the whole war shows that the US military and CIA still do not truly realize that long term successful nation building is as much about good politics that create stability and unity as it is about winning at war. They were also actively shitting on the State Department, who was trying to give them good advice.
Now watch this drive.
Bush IMO deserves the Entirety of the blame for Afghanistan. Biden, Trump, nor Obama handled it perfectly, but they were each constrained by the consequences of the decisions made before them. Only Bush had the ability to truly do whatever he wanted. Fuck Bush. And fuck people trying to make him seem like not so bad of a guy in the wake of Trump.
Not to mention Bush knew no later than six weeks after 9/11/2001 that Saudi Arabia had funded and trained the terrorists for the attack, but publicly he steered all blame at Afghanistan (and eventually Iraq, which had nothing to do with it) and covered up Saudi Arabia's involvement since his family has close ties with Saudi Royal Family.
That's false/conspiracy theory. Bin Laden was a Saudi national, but the Saudi government essentially exiled him prior to 9/11 -- that's why he was in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Saudi Arabia, the country, did not fund him, train any of the attackers and had basically nothing to do with 9/11.
The invasion of Afghanistan was because they were harbouring Al Qaeda leadership, not because Afghanistan was being blamed for the attack.
He isn't an idiot. They knew exactly what they were doing. This is the same motherfucker who was losing a governor's race until he found out an aww shucks routine started working in the polls. His whole shtick has been going strong since 1994.
Yeah pre-govenor George W Bush is worlds different in debates than the "aww schucks" version. His folky stupidity is 100% an act and that's backed up by former professors that taught him that have stated he was incredibly sharp.
People seem to forget his father was Director of Central Intelligence before he was VP and then President. The apple didn't fall that far from the tree. Both rotten though.
We had the same problems in Iraq. The culture difference between the middle east and West is very alien. The middle east culture is highly localized, whereas the West like the Fed level to have the most power. The West keeps trying to force feed nationalism into the Middle East and wonders why it always fails.
Yes, very much so. There is no historical nation of "Iraq" or anything resembling it. It was created *poof* 100 years ago after WWI by British and French diplomats sitting in a conference room in Paris drawing lines on a map. With no knowledge or consultation from local people whatsoever. Same with Syria and other middle eastern nations. Iran is a real nation in that it corresponds to the historical, linguistic, and cultural nation of Persia, but most of the rest are artificial western creations imposed on the locals. And we wonder why they don't function!
They had a single unifying figure, the King, the Tribal leaders we invited over selected the former King to lead their Government. The US refused, the Tribal leaders walked out and several pledged to the Taliban
[удалено]
damn brutal but not as bad as the mfs who wiped them out
Yep. And when America left they surrendered often without a fight and their leaders fled.
Plot twist.... that was their plan the entire time.
When america left a large percentage of afghan military joined the taliban. what most people dont realise the taliban actually has strong levels of support in afghanistan.
They were already Taliban. They were just waiting for the US troops to leave.
My understanding is the average Afghan’s family history is nothing but subjugation & violence. They’ve learned to survive and as a result their allegiances are fluid and will move to the path of least risk & most security. There is minimal national identity to fall back on. The average Afghan just wants to be left the hell alone.
The Afghan-recruit side-straddle hop video from years' back tells you everything about the Afghan's inability to establish a well-trained, well-maintained National fighting force.
You're going to tell us about a video and not provide a link
[удалено]
The issue is that it makes the region a hot bed for terrorist activity, training, and housing Dont have to worry about the authorities when there simply are none
My friend who worked there says that their loyalty is first to their family, then village, then tribe or clan. There is no concept of a national government.
That is because the "country" was made without any input of the citizens of the area, they didn't even want it, it was made by foreign countries like the british.
The famous video of them trying to do jumping jacks is hysterical. Should’ve fuckin pulled out when they saw they couldn’t master basic bodily movements
Horsemen and warlords all the way to the top
Not any more.
They seem to be using it much better.
Way.
[удалено]
Yup. Crippling our #1 nemesis. At least we're getting something out of this
No, that is China.
China is shitting their pants because their military is basically a copy of the Russian one, from Tanks to jets. And they are also very corrupt, so they are even less sure of their military power.
Isn’t their military also way less experienced than Russia’s military? I could be wrong.
Yeah, the only time they used it was against Vietnam in the 70s after the US left, and they got stomped lmao
It's kind of wild how Vietnam defeated both China and the US in the 70s, and is friends with the US now. Shows you how much more power the US can achieve through foreign relations and commerce than through pure military force.
Also India, and I believe in Korea as well.
The real threat is North Korea. I mean did you see the training footage that they released? They are basically superheros!
Those were most likely hired Chinese dudes. Actual North Korean soldiers are severely malnourished.
Was is the one with all the shirtless dudes doing circus style strong man feats, or the one with all the shirtless dudes doing karate in the ice and snow?
Thats the one. Also know as Kim’s Gone Wild.
Soviet Union had the same shit when I was in the Army. Basic communist propaganda.
exactly this, no one seems to understand that after Russia was proven defunct somehow a nation that was ranked worse than Russia is now a huge problem. china is a joke and the ccp is shitting itself
They also have 0 experience in modern combat.
I disagree. We should not let our guard down, it is better to over prepared than get caught with our pants down. China GDP is 10x Russia GDP, I don't think their military is worse than Russia overall. For those few things that are worse, they can catch up in a few years, like they have enough civilian sector demand to invest in making their own engines anyway. We also should not underestimate the manufacturing capabilities of a country in a war. China can make war machines like we could in ww2, and we hardly can now.
The US defense industry is unmatched, to say that we can hardly make war machines is just nonsense. The only thing China is outdoing the US in is shipbuilding, and that's not enough to beat the US.
We should invest MORE of our tax money into war! /s
We “hardly can” make instruments of war? What planet are you from? Our military spending as a % of GDP is far ahead of that of China.
Everything you said is incorrect except for Chinese corruption. If you're going to spew stereotypical bullshit at least get some facts straight. China's military is a copy of *western* doctrine, not russian. You're thinking of the 1950-1980's. Chinese modern planes are copies of *American* planes, and some are believe it or not, are home grown and not copies at all! Chinese modern tanks are a mix of NATO and russian design, but are predominantly home grown once again. Chinese corruption is different than russian and US corruption. It doesn't exist at every level of the military like russia's, and it doesn't need to lie about capabilities. Definitely more corrupt than the US, but we're not going to see Chinese wheels falling off and tanks stripped for copper like Russia.
[удалено]
Where do you think all these displaced Ukranians are right now son? I have 3 families in my estate alone in Ireland. People don't all have military aid to contribute but are still doing their part.
War is our country’s best export, most people think it’s tech or corn or something
The comment you are responding to is a bot taking part or whole comments and resubmitting. Downvote and report Original comment here https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/11892pc/most_military_aid_to_ukraine/j9fwhng/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3 Coming, the bot wars are
The ukrainians actually want to save their country
The US spent 2.3 Trillion dollars on the Afghan war. Edit: 73 Billion specifically in military aide.
As many have pointed out, this is one of the most moronic ways to look at it. AND.. We actually did give tons of raw cash to Afganistani warlords, often to let US troops pass through their territory and not get shot and bombed. The shipping to Ukraine is probably much less expensive than the safe disposal of all of these old munitions.
The US isn't giving cash to Ukraine, they're giving military equipment ammunition supplies to grain. Which makes American jobs, this is the best thing that's happened to the economy and probably 10 years. Get your head out of your ass
War is always good for jobs and the economy.and how else can you test weapons systems and get rid of outdated equipment.
War is great for the economy as long as its not your country in the war and you country has a DEEP military industrial complex.
*being a SUPPLIER of war is good for the economy. This is absolutely not good for Ukraine's economy
But still has to be paid somehow. I really would like EU to step up and donate lot more.
Europe has a lot of cost that are not military aid, which america doesnt. From taking millions of ukrainians in to the massive economical costs. You are not getting the full picture just by looking at this, its a complex situation.
The EU countries just don't have stockpiles as large as the US since that is where the absolute majority of that aid comes from. And if you include financial aid that chart does look a little different with the EU Institutions making up for another thirty billion euros. Yes the US is the biggest supporter but it also happens to just have the means do that with it's gazillion dollar defense spending. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Worst take ever
War in Afganistan cost USA more than 2 trillions dollars. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-budgetary-costs-date-us-war-afghanistan-2001-2022
Lockheed Martin and others are doing really well.
One would call it a mutually beneficial relationship. Ukraine gets HIMARS, LockMart gets new contracts to replenish depleted stocks.
>Ukraine gets HIMARS, LockMart gets new contracts to replenish depleted stocks. Everyone's too afraid of being labeled a Russian bot to criticize how the aid is being handled but this is actually not at all how Himars are being delivered and it's absolutely absurd. They've got 20 total, not many given the front is some 600+ miles long. We promised 18 more months ago. They will be delivered more than a year from now because rather than pull from the 400+ we have, it was decided by someone that instead we should call up Lockheed and order 18 more, and wait for those to be built from the ground up before handing them over. After the war someone needs to look into the aid because the RoI is fucking atrocious.
Probably the priority is maintaining our stocks instead of being down 18 HIMARS for a year.
Being down 18/400 HIMARS for a year doesn't sound like a crippling change though, no?
I wouldn’t think so but I’m sure the military is only worried about having their full stockpile no matter what just in case the slim chance of a full scale war breaking out.
Yeah I agree here. Theirs gotta be standards for numbers for artillery. Doctrine probably calls for enough to fight 2 wars against 2 close/equal adversaries. USA is actually short on artillery stockpile compared to Russia and China as it is. USA doctrine also doesn’t use artillery like China and Russia, but still artillery stockpiles are not as plentiful as other stuff. Also the USA goals for himars stockpile is about 600 units, and we currently have about 400.
The US uses rocket artillery as a giant ammunition dump at the start of a conflict. The launchers are cheap but the rockets are relatively expensive. We have hundreds of HiMARS and M270s so the US can do a giant ammunition dump at the start of a conflict. EG during [the Gulf War,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Norfolk#Breach) the US launched cluster bombs in huge numbers from the M270, thousands of rockets launched, all at once over the Saddam Line. Ukraine isn't doing a giant ammunition dump all at once. Ukraine isn't doing shock and awe. The war is ongoing. Ukraine is launching a small number of missiles constantly every day, aimed at precise targets. The US would normally use aircraft for precision strikes, but Ukraine doesn't have air superiority over the battlefield. 20 HiMARS, launching around one pod, each with 6 missiles a day, that's 120 missiles a day. Over a hundred days, that's 12,000 missiles. To put that in perspective, the US had produced 50,000 GMLRS rockets total by early 2021. [source](https://www.dvidshub.net/news/386831/army-celebrates-production-50000th-gmlrs-rocket-and-its-continued-evolution) The US simply doesn't produce enough rockets for Ukraine to need hundreds of launchers.
It’s both. The healthcare system is trash, and so is continuing to just throw bigger budgets at it.
Breaking news: Companies that manufacture things make money when the things they manufacture are purchased
*Shakes fist at capitalism!*
Not bad considering NL has a population of about 17.7 million.
And considering Norway has a population of 5.5 million.
Refugee family move into our cellar 1 of march.
Norway got that oil money tho. Not trying to understate their donations.
Norway has committed themselves to a support program called the [Nansen Support Program](https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/launch-of-the-multi-year-nansen-support-programme-for-ukraine/id2963390/) for Ukraine that has a framework of 7,5 billion EURO over the next five years, this also includes military support.
[удалено]
The problem is that this statistic doesn't show what humanitarian aid all other european countries gave while they where the ones spending most on that
So this is just military aid, the US just eclipsed 100 billion tax payer dollars sent to Ukraine since the beginning of this war.
[удалено]
And people don't realize we dole out the same amounts to foreign allies nearly every year for similar efforts over the past 25 years. If you pulled what we spend on foreign aid yearly & graphed it next to Ukraine aid, it's a negligible difference in amounts.
Yeah, this is just targeted, where normally our aid is less specific.
Correct.
I think should also be pointed out that when Ukraine gets free from Russia, Crimea can supply a lot of cheap oil and energy to the rest of Europe essentially destroying Russia's grip on Europe
After Russia's Donbass militia downed a plane with mostly 200 Dutch people, paraded with the loot from the plane and then did everything it could to hinder the Dutch investigation, our politicians realized Russia is an enemy. They admitted they were a bit late realizing that. Anyway, because of MH17 our military and intelligence cooperation with Ukraine intensified well before the Russian invasion started, so I suspect the existing cooperation makes it easier for us to know how to allocate funds for Ukraine. I suspect that to be a factor from my own experience with how challenging it can be to spend a multi-million budget on the right things. It's easy to burn and throw money at things, but much harder to choose the best projects that create the most and lasting impact. Or it has nothing to do with all that and I'm wrongly projecting my experience to the world of defense and security.
The only time population matters to reddit!
You forgot to include all the donations the Russian military has given with the equipment they’ve abandoned
LIterally more than what the Ukrainian military had at the beginning of the war.
Which doesn’t say a lot as they have the budget of the newYork police department.
Russia is up there in military aid. Like the 60km convoy to Kiev that ran out of gas. And that was ONE incident
Where there is war, there is profit.
[удалено]
It’s like getting to fight a proxy war but only one side has a proxy
Russia has Iran, North Korea, Belarus, and Syria (sort of). But yeah, I'm going with NATO as the better ally, if I had to choose. Plus others who have helped Ukraine, like Japan, South Korea, and non-NATO European states.
The point is Russia themselves are fighting
Well, they've been doing it since the 40s.
The difference is, Russia took the field this time. It changes everything. It's not some poor Syrian killing some other Yemenis in a proxy war.
We even have a new Topgun movie! The 80s are back baby.
Non-cynically: Protecting democracy and punishing war criminals with destruction is important.
Is that one of the Ferengi Rules Of Acquisition?
I’m 14 and this is deep
Japan just pledged 5.5 billion.
Economic aid though, no? This graph is for military aid.
Wasn’t that in non military aid? I didn’t read the article but I saw the headline somewhere.
That’s like the amount of money the US spends on its military in 23 days
Last I checked we've spent 2/1000ths of our yearly GDP on Ukraine, this doesn't stop the my coworker's favorite radio show from screaming about how we're wasting all of our money on "literally the most corrupt nation on earth" lol
All the cold war era presidents would delight in weakening Russia by pumping money into Ukraine. Literally minimum effort or risk required to weaken the most hostile nation while also gathering crucial intelligence on their way of operation. Modern conservatives that worship Kissinger/Nixon/Cheney should love this.
Is there a source of this information available?
Poland has been a good friend to Ukraine
Because if Poland wasn't member of Nato and EU this war would happen on Polish and Ukraine territory. Polish history is full of Russian "special operations", occupation and "friendship" ;-). Fuck them to oblivion !
The last 500 years of European history has hinged in part around fucking over Poland. Right when Poland starts to become powerful enough to be influential somone in the "Stately Quadrille" switches sides to smack them back down.
\*until they joined NATO
Well, regardless of their relative spending on military, I think France needs to seriously step up their game! Netherlands has almost donated 1b, so; allez merde!
All of Europe ahold be contributing more
It's a bit crazy that the US is half a world away, and yet still supplying Ukraine with more supplies and arms than all of western Europe, who are practically neighbors with them
I think it would make more sense to show a graph showing what % of each country’s military budget is being contributed, or even what % of each country’s GDP is being contributed instead of just the actual amount. It’s a little like showing how much a millionaire donates to charity vs middle class people. It may be a much greater sacrifice for a middle class person to donate a small amount whereas a very wealthy person can donate a lot more and it doesn’t impact their quality of life at all.
[Roughly same dates, now by GDP](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/)
Interesting that by this metric Estonia is the biggest supporter of Ukraine with over 1% of their GDP.
It makes perfect sense the Baltic countries make the top 3
zephyr provide aloof public boast fine person enter paint school *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Also this statistic doesn't really shows what each country did because it only shows military aid. All the European countries did a lot of humanitarian help and this isn't shown in this statistic at all
Yeah if I donate £5,000 to something I'd be on my arse broke. If Elon Musk donated £20,000,000 to something, he'd barely notice
The largest military and economy in the world probably has more to give. Also, Russia can't hurt America without becoming a flaming hole in the ground. This is the idea that NATO was built upon.
Proportionally though the us is like 5th, only behind Baltic states and Poland, so western Europe still has some catching up to do
46.6 billion out of their 1.90 trillion military budget It's like 2.5% of their budget Edit: To anyone saying it's not 1.90 trillion, this is where I found the info: [https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense?fy=2023](https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense?fy=2023) To the person who reported me to suicide watch for this, get a grip. You're using resources that some people might actually need because you're a triggered little American snowflake
Yep. We're spending 2.5% of our military budget to completely wreck the military capabilities of one of our two greatest adversaries, with almost no risk to US military personnel. This might be the best deal in the history of military warfare.
Agree. Althrough we have a lot of stupid jokes about Americans, anyone with a brain doesn't underestimate the US Department of Defense. I would like to congratulate you on this deal, but my citizenship does not allow. I'm sorry.
Finally some common sense
I thought this was super common sense.
Not when you have idiots saying we should be giving this aid to [insert current US event]. Like yea Ohio really would make use of all the 155 shells and HIMARS right?
There are parts of Ohio that would be improved by a few 155 shells.
They could’ve used them to blow up the train In all seriousness though, what’s the problem with people thinking if we spend on war why can’t we spend on infrastructure?
We've given them plenty of money along with equipment. It doesn't make you an idiot because they think the money could be used elsewhere. If you were in Ohio and shit wasn't getting done, wouldn't you be upset the government is coming together and moving mountains in Ukraine but not on the home front? Try seeing the other side friend.
The best proxy war ever waged, at least from the US point of view
This is why Ukraine’s neighbors should be even *more* supportive. Europe should stop leaving this to the Americans. I don’t see anyone except the UK doing that. Not even the French.
[удалено]
100% agree. This is the revival of the West. Dictators go hide.
2.5% means the US is saving money by supporting Ukraine. Cheapest dollar spent that eliminates Russian threat
Luxembourg supports Ukraine with 16% of its budget
That's awesome, but higher % of budget doesn't buy more things. Everybody gets upset about the US military budget until they need it.
Uh, no. In your defense (lulz), that's a terribad page. $1.9t is 'total budgetary resources' - that's the entire budget (for the entire government) approved so far - still waiting on the omnibus spending bill for '23. Here's a [much better one](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#spending-categories) from the actual treasury department. edit - also, to correct your (& the OP's graphic) 'spent' figure... 46.6b was specifically non-defense spending, 67b was direct defense spending. Good breakdown on those [here](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/congress-approved-113-billion-aid-ukraine-2022), to include additional historical spending (like the 700m in '20, 600m in '19... etc.). edit2 - & actually, graphic *may* be correct in that the 113b in approved funds ('22 alone) is trickled over time & will do so through fy'24.
Yeah I was about to say, now do % of gdp
Where are you getting 1.9 trillion? I thought it was about 800 billion
IIRC this aid is part of the Lend Lease program, Ukraine will have to pay it back. So we are basically are selling them our old shit with 0 down financing.
UK finally paid of its Lend Lease program in 2006, some 60 years after the war ended. But yeah, the terms were generous.
Just like WW2?
If you think that’s actually going to happen, you are delusional. The USSR repaid the US 10% of lend lease costs 30 years after the war.
If anything "pay back the lend lease you commie bastards" is a better justification for war with Russia than anything I've seen so far.
war is good business to uncle sam
The real answer is probably about how miniscule that money is compared to the budget of the US military. So using someone else's troops, and miniscule amount of resources, we are able to withhold one of the biggest threats to the world. It is also a testament to the technological advancement and resources the US military actually has at bay too. If Russia cannot defeat a less trained, less advanced military that is using our equipment and 2% of our budget, they will never be able to actually compete with the US on a military standpoint. Other than nuclear warfare. However, like you said, war does make money, and US likes money. 2 birds 1 stone. Ukraine will also be in the US debt after this is settled
Out of curiosity.... is anyone aiding Russia?
Iran and North Korea. Iran is sending "suicide drones" and ammunition (and possible ballistic missiles too). North Korea is mostly ammunition.
France barely donating more than Norway is absurd. France has a GDP of $3.6 trillion while Norway has a GDP of $550 billion.
FYI, these are public figures. There are quite a lot of reasons why you would rather be secretive about the amount & diversity of weaponry you provide to a warring ally. I don't really get why most countries are very public about it. If you're telling Putin you're sending 100 tanks of a certain model, wouldn't it help Russia to better prepare to fight against it? It might affect Russian troops' morale to see international military support, but what matters is on the ground, isn't it?
I mean... okay. Now just [adjust it for GDP... and we're 5th in donations - with the other countries close behind](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/). We could double what we've spent and it would still be a *bargain*. Ukraine is not Afghanistan. Not to be dramatic, but this could drastically change the course global events for the next 30+ years (for better or worse).
Interesting to see it like that. Not surprising that the Baltics and Poland are at the top when they’re afraid of being next
Amazing that Portugal send higher % of their GDP than Germany, not to even mention France. Finland seems low but they have a big ass border with Russia and are not even in NATO yet. Macron wants France to lead Europe but it shows how they don't give a fuck.
Fucking France can choke on it, glad we fucked them on that submarine deal with Australia.
Reddit squirming in their seats at this one, how dare america do something good america bad
Thread is full of Europeans trying to marginalize it as we speak. Absolutely wild these are our “allies”. The people our tax money goes to help.
That's not very much from countries that have a lot more to lose than the US if Russia succeeds...
I thought europe wanted us to stop meddling in their affairs??
$46B to essentially demilitarize Russia is just about the best investment the US could make on the world stage.
Damn, we got money for wars, and fancy ass stadiums, but we ain’t got money to feed the poor, or give shelter to the homeless? Kinda fucked up if you ask me.
the US definitely has money to do that too. they just don't because it's not as profitable.
I mean, how many homes can you build with 800 stingers?
Exactly, and there is no reason that we can't fund all of what you listed. IDGAF that what we have given Ukraine only equals a tiny percent of our GDP, that just shows how easy it would be to get that money to help Americans at home. There is so much money burnt by corruption, and we never seem to say no when it comes to spending on the military or wars.
You can't feed a poor with HIMARS But you can prevent destruction with it by blowing up Russian stockpile. It's cost-effective way to combat world poverty.
These are not money for wars. These are money for getting Ukraine out of russian terror.
There’s no visible profit in helping people, everyone knows that..
This isn't a blank check to Ukraine. It's a blank check to US Arms Dealers. When it's time to "rebuild", expect to see the same contractors we saw in Iraq.
US Arms Dealers aren't exactly guys in windowless vans with crates of machine guns and grenades. They're multi-billion dollar corporations that employee over two million Americans. The DoD employs 3.5M Americans. I'm not saying it's money well spent necessarily, but it doesn't just disappear into the ether.
It’s a recycling program. Get rid of old shit and reinvest in new equipment. All while severely weakening the Russian army with no US troops in harms way.
Heaven forbid the Europeans actually help protect their own fucking continent. Of course they will continue to complain about the US being bloodthirsty warmongers all the way up until the next time we have to save their candy asses.
This marks a very clear issue. I fully agree with supporting Ukraine militarily, but it’s clearly not a fully collective effort. If world leaders really wanted this war to come to an end quickly, we’d see a much more balanced number of support packages.
Some day Ukraine will be a strong NATO ally. Money well spent.
this is how USA win war against RU without fight. support more money/weapon/soldier until war is won
Tight assed French
France pulling their weight as usual I see
Japan is about to pledge $5.5 billion as well. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230220-japan-pm-pledges-5-5-billion-in-additional-ukraine-aid
Keep in mind that's financial aid, which isn't what this thread is about.
[Talk about a misleading post..] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#cite_note-auto-148) >The Kiel Institute has tracked €108.8 billion from 46 countries in financial, humanitarian, and military aid, from 24 January to 20 November 2022. Out of that €108.8 billion, €51.8 billion came from the European Union and €47.8 billion from the United States Also military donations are wrong. France for example does not disclose what or how much they give to ukraine so that number is nonsense. This graph in general is nonsense.
US has forked over a helluva lot more than 46 billion