• stewie3128@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I know NATO doesn’t have unlimited resources, but given that this is an explicit proxy war with Russia, doesn’t $100bn seem kind of paltry? That makes it appear that they’re planning on continuing cash infusions from the US.

    • stewie3128@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      EDIT: I’m saying that the US can’t be relied on to continue supporting the war effort because the GOP in particular has become increasingly opposed to funding it.

    • seriousconsideration@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      This thing has already been going on for 2 years and Russia isn’t pulling out. It’s a war of attrition. First side to blink loses. NATO cannot lose Ukraine to Russia. Period.

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Maybe a little. The US had a bill for providing 60bn so 100bn is quite a bit more, though maybe not significantly considering all the countries involved.

    • Num10ck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      might be chump change for you but likely its tied to Ukraine’s conceivable ability to pay down such debt. although in reality it would likely be mostly written off when things quiet down… especially since the moneys would be mostly spent on NATO military goods.

      • force@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Well IIRC, for America, the funding money amount for Ukraine is usually just an estimate of the worth of already manufactured goods, mainly of weapons that we have stored that we weren’t gonna use in the first place, and only a small portion of the dollar amount is stuff like clothes, food, etc. which would be seen as an actual cost to the US. We have sent Bradleys and M1 Abrams, but I’m pretty sure they weren’t in use by the military and weren’t planned to be upgraded for use any time soon (but I’m just guessing, I can’t Google it rn, I may just be completely wrong on that).

    • force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’d be so much better for everyone if we just took all of the funding going to Israel and redirected it to Ukraine. And then we nuke Israel or smthn idk

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    The problem NATO has with this proxy war can’t be solved by printing money. The issue with the lack of industrial production in the west, and you can’t just create a huge industry for producing weapons and ammunition out of whole cloth.

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Industrial production is not a significant issue the collective West has within the context of supplying Ukraine armaments and ammunition.

      The issue is a lack of, or decline in, domestic political capital in key member states, cohesive unified policy, and a long term strategy.

      Now, if the United States was completely removed from the equation, then industrial production capacity constraints, especially around munitions, may become a real issue.

        • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          US and Western officials insist that although Russia has been able to jump-start its factory lines, in part because it has the advantage of being a managed economy under the control of an autocrat, capitalist western nations will eventually catch up and produce better equipment.

          I mean the article seemingly agrees with CircusCritic, they’re only outproducing because of lack of funding from NATO countries in combination with the control Russia has over its own economy. If NATO, NATO countries, or the US can actually begin to deliver a lot of funds, production will increase rapidly.

          We have industries for creating these armaments, they just don’t have the incentive to create a lot due to a lack of funding.

          The when is of course an important question. Providing 100 billion to Ukraine in funding in 2 years will have a different impact than 100 billion next month.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            As I explained in my original comment, you can’t just create such industries overnight. These require building out supply chains, training workers, and so on. You can just look at how great reshoring chip production is going despite untold billions being poured into that to get an idea of what a monumental task this is.

            Building out an industry on this scale is going to take years if not decades. Providing 100 billion to Ukraine in funding isn’t going to do jack shit. Ukraine is running out of weapons and ammunition. Replacements for any of these don’t exist, and production capacity is insufficient to make any actual difference in the foreseeable future.

            Highly recommend reading this article from RUSI explaining these problems https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine

            • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Ship building and shell production are on the polar opposite ends of time requirements for industrial capacity building…the fact that you used ship building as an example here makes me wonder if you’re being intentionally disingenuous…

              Also, you don’t seem to understand how these funding programs actually work if you think this is being allocated to build out Ukrainian domestic production capacity.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Chip production might have different requirements from shell production, but it’s a good example of how difficult it is to bootstrap an industry. Also, nobody is talking about allocating anything to Ukrainian domestic production capacity here. Maybe actually try and read that RUSI article till you understand what it’s saying.

          • BakerBagel@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Does the west actually have those industries? Turns out decades of outsourcing as much production as possible overseas was a bad idea. Who would have thunk it.

            • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Munition factories aren’t typically outsourced, but a lot were decommissioned after the Cold War ended. That problem is especially acute within European NATO member states.

              But, in the context of NATO, as a whole, just supplying Ukraine for their existing conflict, production isn’t the limiting factor.

              • BakerBagel@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                The munitions themselves are made in the US, but the raw materials, tooling, and various components in more advanced weaponry have complicated supply chains and are sourced from all over.

                The US military is going through massive headaches because domestic supply chains arent able to support the construction of new ships, missles, tanks, aircraft, and other equipment like mobile launchers and uniforms because the domestic production of raw materials and skilled labor required for production have been gutted. Just look at the fiasco that AUKUS is currently undergoing trying to produce submarines. Sure the Navy never technically stopped building it’s ships domestically, but allowing the rest of the domestic shipbuilding industry to collapse has lead to the US being comically inept at at producing serviceable ships.

                Free market capitalism is incompatible with national security as capital is only interested in quarterly profits and will sacrifice long term security to meet that goal. Defense contractors have de facto monopolies today and use the threat of going out of business to pressure the Pentagon into giving them massive paychecks to fuck around.

    • jackpot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      warning to all, this guy does nothing but spread russian propaganda all day. check their post history.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      That has a considerable risk of backfiring. If Putin dies, the people right next in line to take the helm are the ultra-nationalist fash in charge of the Russian State. If one of those suddenly takes control of Russia, and realizes that they’re fighting an unpopular war without having the backing of actually being Putin, it becomes far more likely that they do something extremely stupid such as launching nuclear weapons, which would be terrible for everyone.

  • NIB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    That’s 20 billion per year. The EU’s alone defense spending for 2023 was 270bil. This is not a lot of money.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yeah, this is less the cavalry is here and more “we’ve committed 3 peanuts, which is better than no peanuts”. It’s probably enough to help Ukraine a bit, assuming they can agree to it and fund it as committed.

      It’s unclear if this is humanitarian, non-lethal or general military aid, from the non-paywalled section of the article.

    • PopcornTin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Five years? They need $100 billion at least monthly! It’s ridiculous the way Republicans treat these innocent people

        • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Not certain if trolling or just unfamiliar, but Republicans politicians are doing what they can to not get in Russia’s way or doing things that benefit Russia. For instance, Republicans aren’t really supporting providing additional funding to Ukraine. Republicans have also used an FBI informant who was bribed by Russia as evidence to try to impeach Joe Biden.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            I dont support Russia, but am vehemently against aid to Ukraine for a variety of reasons. American should have never been involved in any of it, just like with Isreal.

            • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              As it is now, Russia controlling as much oil as they do gives them power over us, them controlling Ukraine will also help them affect food prices as well as just encouraging them to continue to attack their enemies. Europe has significant reason to jump to prevent Russia’s advancement, European countries being our allies is another reason to stop Russia’s push into Europe.

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                Sorry, but these are just propaganda talking points. Russia has very little power over the western nations, and they were never going to invade the rest of Europe. The whole war was completely avoidable, but that is what the government and media will conveniently not mention. The whole narrative is an objective pile of bullshit.

                • seriousconsideration@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Unless you have any kind of proof that this is all a smokescreen and propaganda for a more nefarious plot, we’re going to continue to listen to the unanimous Western sources including live on the ground video footage and first hand accounts that Russia is illegally invading Ukraine. But also, we’re 2 years into this war. You’re way too late to be on Lemmy peddling your misinformation.

                • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Power over Western nations may have been a strong word, they have influence. We don’t know their plan, but we can look at past trends: they’ve attacked Georgia, they’ve attacked and controlled Crimea, they’re attacking and controlling parts of Ukraine. Not fighting Russia hasn’t stopped Russia, so with Russia now at war with Ukraine, stopping them there seems like a necessity. Maybe now they’ll learn that imperialism is dead, and looked badly on by other nations. They shouldn’t be rewarded for this bad behavior against our allies.

            • Rakonat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Russia invaded Ukraine on false pretexts with the intent to use military action to overthrow a democratically elected government after their last attempt at coup/puppet government failed when their patsy fled the country after his failed attempt.

              After the US failed to act in 2014 despite evidence of Russia starting proxy wars against Ukraine and annexing land illegally, and further muddied by Trump’s attempts to withhold defense aid packages he was obligated by law to deliver.

              So yes, US involvement has been justified and Ukraine has not only been happy for the assistance but requested more to ensure their freedom and prosperity doesn’t vanish tomorrow with Putin’s intent to rape the entire country.

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                How is the US justified to meddle in the politics of countries on the other side of the planet? What would the US do if china was giving money to Mexico or Cuba?

                • wieson@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Because Ukraine asked.

                  What would be the problem with China giving money to Cuba and Mexico?

                • SteveXVII@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Because they do the right thing this time. What is wrong with helping a country defend itself from an agressor? I know the US does and has done shitty things, that does not mean that everything the US does is bad.

        • Rakonat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Literally the entire GOP with standouts like Greene going far as to say we should cut all aid to Ukraine and shift to helping Russia. The entire right wing of our government took the red too literally and jumped in bed with former Soviet agents for a pocket full of rubles.

            • kandoh@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              What if chattel slavery was actually net benefit for black people because they got to leave Africa and learn useful skills?

              That’s what you sound like with your ‘maybe Ukrainians would be better off under Vladimir Putin’s control’ rhetorical word poop.

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                False equivalence. Literally Ukraine would have been better off if the west had not given them any money at all. The war would have been over and Ukraine would have more territory and more living people. And that doesnt even get into if the war was entirely preventable to start with. Ukraine is about to lose the war and all you guys want to do is give them more money so more ukrainians die.

                • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Ukraine would have more territory

                  How would Ukraine have more territory when the reason Putin said he needed to invade was to take territory away from Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians?

                • kandoh@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Good points, let’s change Ukraine to Ireland and Russia to the British Empire and see if we still think they’re good points.

                  … Oh, oh god…

                  It seems we’ve BOTH made a huge mistake and inadvertently thought imperialism is good just because it had a Russian accent. How embarrassing for the both of us.

                  I’m glad we’ve both learned from this horrible accident and will no longer support imperial ambitions just because it’s being done by a non-US ally.

                • GojuRyu@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Should every country just surrender to aggressors, only those that require aid to defend themselves or some other criteria? This seems like a call for any small state to just give up when a conqueror is at their door ready to oppress them, is that what you believe?

  • RampageDon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Doesn’t it take only 1 of the counties with veto power to shut this down? Why would Russia ever approve?

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Which is why I’m baffled why people still spread the myth that Russia invaded to ‘stop nato aggression.’

        Like, firstly you’re fucking wrong, but if you want to wear that L like a medal then go for it. Russia is the biggest reason the baltics joined.

        • ☭ Blursty ☭@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          NATO lost. They stopped the aggression. You’re going to have to dea with that. NATO is finished now, along with the rest of the west.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m not sure who would say that it was to ‘stop NATO aggression’, but it’s not hard to imagine it as a some kind of response to NATO’s continued expansion around them.

          NATO hasn’t been in any direct operations against Russia but they have been involved in the ME where they have been active.

          I think of it a lot in the same way as the US’s pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            I think of it a lot in the same way as the US’s pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.

            The “Cuban” missile crisis was started by USA putting nukes in Turkey.

          • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I’m not sure who would say that it was to ‘stop NATO aggression’

            I think the line might be “in response to” or similar, but it’s parroted by tankies and russophiles.

            NATO’s continued expansion around them.

            Can we imagine any reasons why Russia’s neighbors might want to join a defensive pact to protect against Russia? No? Oh well, must be US imperialism then.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              I’m not saying there isn’t reason for those countries to want to joint an alliance against their imperialist neighbor, but honestly it’s kinda hard not to see how NATO’s influence has been abused for purposes other than defense.

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Nato: Invades the entire middle east and fucks it up to steal oil

              You: “What a great defensive alliance”

              Where those WMD’s in Iraq at?

        • gun@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Russia is the biggest reason the baltics joined.

          The Baltic states joined in 2004. Long before Putin was made into a pariah, and Russia was still seen as part of the West and publicly aspiring to join NATO

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Because that’s what Russia has been repeating for the past two years. Some people believe lies whan they’re repeated often enough.

          A major reason may have been to stop Ukraine’s entry in Nato though.

        • nxdefiant@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I am very confused by your comment. Are you saying Putin never said that, or are you saying he was lying?

          From Putin’s actual mouth:

          ON DECISION TO LAUNCH ‘SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION’

          “We saw military infrastructure being ramped up, hundreds of military advisers working and regular deliveries of modern weapons from NATO. (The level of) danger was increasing every day. Russia preventively rebuffed the aggressor. It was necessary, timely and … right. The decision of a sovereign, strong, independent country.”

          Just to be clear, he definitely said that, but he was definitely lying.

          (source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-speaks-victory-day-parade-moscows-red-square-2022-05-09/)

    • MrEff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I know, right? Like, who the fuck needs democracy and sovereignty? If they didn’t want to be part of Russia, then they should have just said so. Has Velinsky tried talking to the justly elected Putin? This 100 billion could be spent on rebuilding all the housing in Ukrane that was blown up by Russia DEFENDING its self from the Ukrainian troops invading Ukraine. This could be 100 billion dollars in food aid spread around the world in the form of Ukrainian grain shipments that have been stalled or sunk, but Ukraine has CHOSEN to stop shipping their grain by blocking their own barges and trucks.this could have been 100 billion dollars in CLEAN oil that Russia could have been exporting to help the world with energy, but instead will have to rebuild because the plants keep blowing up. If only there was a solution that would let the world move on and spend their money on better things. If only we would just give in to Russia and let them take what they want at the expense of others- then the world would be a better place.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sovereignty of a nation and an ethnic group’s right not to be genocided by their neighbor isn’t something worth spending money on?

        • mycathas9lives@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          @brain_in_a_box @Rakonat

          I cannot agree with this statement.

          Consider how many genocides have occurred since the 1948 convention and its ratification in 1951. Now consider that three have been legally recognised – and led to trials – under the convention:

          Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia (and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre), and Cambodia under the 1975-9 Pol Pot regime.

          Israel will have its day to atone for its behavior. They have become what they despise.

      • Stalins_Spoon@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sovereignty of a nation

        Donetsk and Luhansk Republics

        ethnic group’s right not to be genocided by their neighbor

        Ethnic Russians in Ukraine

      • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Also, even if it wasnt a war of extermination:

        Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for protection. Do you think anyone else is going to be dumb enough to do that in the future?

        • qdJzXuisAndVQb2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          I am pro-Ukrainian in this conflict, but this is untrue. Point to the specific wording in the accord that supports what you’re saying, if you can.

          • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I’ve never read it directly, just seen this referenced, but I remember seeing something about it in a textbook (or something? That kind of paper), and an anti nuclear friend of the family holding Ukraine up as an example back in like the 90s.

    • NIB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      If someone invaded your country, would you still have the same opinion? If Trump invaded your country(assuming you are not an american), would you still say “why are we spending billions to fight Trump, when we could have spent them on education and housing?”.

      • index@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        USA has active military bases with nukes pretty much all over europe, technically they already invaded my country. There’s hundreds of USA military planes alone flying over europe daily. If russia, china or anyone else would give 100 billions to any corrupted fascist government in europe that would still be a bad thing because ultimately it wouldn’t change anything for people.

        • NIB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Do people in your country oppose those bases? Do you have democracy? If the majority of people opposed those bases, they could vote for some other government. Do you understand the difference between an invasion and hosting allied troops?

          If a country elects a “fascist” government and then gets invaded, do they not deserve help? So i assume you also supported the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam? They didnt even have democracy there, unlike Ukraine.

            • NIB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              So your argument is that since the public in these countries is brainwashed, they arent capable for voting for their leadership, therefore there is no democracy, only the illusion of democracy. Thus an invasion and imposing a new government through violence, maybe one that aligns better with your worldview, is an acceptable thing?

              I dont know, i think this is a very slippery slope. I think brainwashed people deserved to be ruled by whoever they vote, thats what democracy is and has always been. Even in ancient Athens, you had demagogues and sophists(even if we ignore that women and slaves couldnt vote). And money could get you a better sophist, to teach you how to debate and manipulate people.

              So is democracy a fake system that can never be achieved? And your alternative suggestion is what?

              • index@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                And your alternative suggestion is what?

                That you spend 100 billions on something more useful than war

                • NIB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Thats like having your house on fire and saying “this is fine” meme. Do you think that war is never an option? That giving up and letting invaders take what they want is preferable because it “reduces” human suffering?

                  Would you advocate the same during WW2 and Germany/Italy’s invasions? Should the countries that got invaded not resist and should the UK/US not help those countries? Imagine if you were an american in WW2 and your government was giving hundreds of billions worth of equipment to the russians, in order for Russia to fight the nazis. Would you still say “why are we sending hundreds of billions to the corrupt nation of Russia, when that money could have been used in America instead”?

                  The isolationist rhetoric benefits the invaders, who can easily take out individual countries(or regions of countries), one piece at a time, while placating the rest.

      • ☭ Blursty ☭@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        If my country was a Nazi shithole then I’d have the same opinion yes. If my country was one of the most corrupt states in the world and run by a puppet fascist government of the USA, then yes, I’d have the same opinion. if my country’s puppet rulers did everything they could to provoke an invasion and then cry about it then I wouldn’t have any sympathy.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Every dollar that goes to funding nazis in Ukraine for a war they have no chance of winning is a dollar that can’t go towards funding genocide in the middle east.