Maybe, or maybe it’s just good policy to not import a network of drones from an adversary to democracies across the world, which includes the EU most importantly as China helps Russia with its invasion of Ukraine and is gearing up for some activity in Taiwan.
People can just record all this stuff on their iPhones that they already have. You don’t need a DJI drone to record police malfeasance. Maybe you do in China or Iran though. In Iran they are just mowing people down. In China you get disappeared. Interesting that there are no protests about those things though. I guess they just have better social media marketing.
I think propping up the domestic small drone industry is clearly in America's national strategic interest. Hobbyists may not like it, but their toys have become potent weapons of war, so it's important for America that we don't count on importing all of them from China.
I'm in Calgary too (I assume this is what you're referencing). In the wake of this crisis (again!) and the more general decline in trust - both in politicians and your neighbors - a sociologist on the radio was talking about how communication, and specifically drone footage, helps build trust and connect emotionally with the public. We're trying to get people to use less water, and you can scold them (to no effect) or show them actual overhead pictures of the damage and impact.
Even as recently as this past week the United States Navy has tracked down and seized Russian "shadow fleet" tankers which are operating despite American and European sanctions, and did so with Russian naval vessels nearby and despite strong protests and anger from Moscow. Hopefully Europe can step up its game and do so too.
But do you know who is helping Russia besides China? India. Iran, South America (Brazil, &c.), plenty of other countries. They've given no money, no aid, and are all too happy to buy illicit Russian oil.
By only giving Ukraine $175,000,000,000, instead of $500B? Or $1T and American boots on the ground? When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them?
It was 30 years of rot, neglect, theft and corruption that did the majority of the damage to Russia's post-USSR military. The army they have today in Ukraine is only a fraction of what they were capable of in the 1980s.
30 years from today? The army they had in the 80's was such a shadow of post WWII the country was essentially bankrupt, and why Gorbachev let the USSR satellites leave. They had no problem crushing change until they ran out of money. Russia today is much stronger than when the wall came down.
No they didn't. Militarily is was a clear and easy win. Politically it made no sense after a while and USSR decided to leave. Militarily they could have continued staying there for the eternity. The same situation as with the American/Nato forces, with the difference of Soviets controlling significantly more of the country than Nato (only major urban centers, a small part of the country).
Most of the money "given" to Ukraine was older stockpiled weapons that were approaching EOL or at least "refresh cycle" anyway and needed to be replaced. Instead of throwing it away or selling it, they gave it to Ukraine, and most of the actual money spend went to US armaments companies.
The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.
We have neither the money (see national debt) nor production capacity (see 155mm shells, missile production, howitzer barrels, etc) to give billions away for somebody else’s war.
Furthermore, the weapons had a cost when they were new, and replacing them now carries a higher cost.
Saying the price tag is fictional is like saying my dinner is free because the steak was already in my fridge.
The money that was paid to build those weapons went into the American economy, to all the companies that built them, to the employees that work for those companies, etc. Nobody is saying they were "free", but the military industrial complex has always been a jobs program. It employs plenty of Americans, it pays the bills when weapons get made. So we had a bunch of old stock that needed to be replaced, and giving them to Ukraine is an easy win, for a lot of reasons. If Ukraine fell quickly and then Putin goes after Poland and other countries, it's going to cause a lot worse problems for the US and the world. So, giving these older weapons to Ukraine is saving money in the long run. Some people have no ability to see how actions (or inaction) have consequences, and they never think about the wider perspective, only their own little pocketbooks, so it might appear that giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow stealing money from you personally. And if that steak in the fridge is already freezer burned, do you really want to eat it? We're not talking about a brand new steak here.
A) I absolutely was not. I was refuting that we sent $175B to Ukraine. We sent weapons, and spent money in the USA. Basic reading comprehension would be a useful skill for you to have in this thread... see I literally declared the US spent money in both posts. I was just saying where the money was spent.
To quote Wikipedia on the broken window fallacy: The money spent on the war effort (or peacetime defense spending), for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, or other sectors of the economy. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct – but hidden – cost (via foreclosed production possibilities) to other sectors.
A basic understanding of economics would be useful for you to have in this thread.
We are sending Ukraine something of value: cash, weapons, whatever. That value leaves the US and therefore cannot be used for something else, fired in defense of US interests, or used to deter threats to the taxpayer who bought it.
Your initial point that “it’s fine to send this value to Ukraine because now we get to spend more money” to replace it is ridiculous.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I didn't say. And further, you're lying about what I actually said. Please consider having remotely honest discourse if you want to discuss something. I don't want to engage anymore with propagandists who can't even respond the points being made.
Some of the weapons sent have negative monetary value, as in they were to expire and this process of recycling would cost a lot of money. So you should be thanking Ukrainians for taking this burden on themselves without US having to pay for the rendered services. You don't sound thankful enough.
Yea but those weapons are still highly valuable and effective. If you need help you aren't going to be super picky whether the apples and potatoes come from Whole Foods or Kroger.
> The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.
So I don't think this is very accurate. Unless you want to suggest that funding, equipment, and more given under the Biden Administration, never mind US actions like sanctions, are the product of "shady deals".
> Second, Trump is very much helping Russia, literally taking Russian positions in negotiations and pressuring only on Ukraine - into bad deals.
Again, factually incorrect. No deals between Russia and Ukraine have been made, the US continues to sanction Russia and Russian allies including seizure of tankers that are evading sanctions, and the US continues to provide arms, weapons sales, and intelligence to Ukraine including targeting intelligence for striking targets in Russia.
I understand having a different opinion early last year, but the tide has shifted significantly. You are behind the times.
Meanwhile China supplies Russia, India buys their weapons and oil, Iran supplies them with drones, Venezuela/Cuba and all of those shenanigans, Brazil is pro-Russia/neutral, and other countries throughout Latin America and Africa and elsewhere think that NATO started the war!
So no, America didn’t switch sides. The negotiation rhetoric and tactics did, but the end result has not changed. This is not up for debate.
>I'm inclined to think Ukraine is fighting our war for us.
Is there a war we needed to fight with Russia in this decade, the next decade, or the last, and if so, is Ukraine even damaging the parts that matter?
Russia nukes hold America at threat, not a bunch of conscripts and some old BMPs. America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties, and there’s even an argument that a destabilized, volatilized Russia would be more dangerous for America.
> America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties
Europe is safer though, so there's that at least. Russia can't invade the United States of course, but it can invade other countries in Europe, and it is actively taking action to do so.
Depends. Is he actually fighting 450,000,000 in the EU? Is Portugal going to send troops to the front lines in Estonia? Will Germans accept being drafted to go fight in Ukraine? These are serious questions. Meanwhile Putin is very much able to draft Russians to fight wars, and god-forbid he takes over Ukraine he'll send Ukrainians too.
And in this case the US participation should come. Wouldn't be better to fight a Putin's Russia that was weakened in Ukraine? Perhaps weakened so much, that Putin's won't attack at all. Perhaps weaken so much, that the US can scale down its European military force deployment (saving money) and concentrate on other things (China).
So yeah, US investments in Ukraine directly benefit America. Ukrainians are fighting for Americans. So much so, that they are destroying Russia's nuclear weapons capabilities (destroying radars, strategic bombers, submarines and ships, weapons arsenal, ballistic rockets, carriers of nuclear weapons like Iskanders).
I’m not following your point, or maybe you missed mine. You said 100,000 Russian soldiers dead doesn’t make the US any safer, and I agree, but it does make Europe safer because there are fewer Russian soldiers. But then you compared the population of Russia and the EU to imply that Russia is no threat to Europe.
But that analysis is flawed, because the population of Europe isn’t one monolithic block that is guaranteed to respond to Russia with military force in such a way that a direct comparison of the numbers makes much sense. For example, what I mentioned already.
I think you putting words in my mouth. Quote me please. This was somebody else's statement
>"But that analysis is flawed, because the population of Europe isn’t one monolithic block that is guaranteed to respond to Russia"
And my answer was that if they do not they were just hiding behind the US all that time. If the EU will not fight for the EU then, well no need for me to continue..
>"And your reply was Ukraine is not in the EU"
This was in response to: "Will Germans accept being drafted to go fight in Ukraine". They (Germans) will most likely not accept and exactly for the reason that the Ukraine is not in the EU.
Good thing NATO has consistently hit the 2% funding target, and Europe more broadly hasn’t neglected to maintain their defense spending in favor of profligate social welfare spending.
People can just record all this stuff on their iPhones that they already have. You don’t need a DJI drone to record police malfeasance. Maybe you do in China or Iran though. In Iran they are just mowing people down. In China you get disappeared. Interesting that there are no protests about those things though. I guess they just have better social media marketing.