TWD 1974 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.

Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.

---

Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,

---

[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:

US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:

Quote:

---

Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.

---

Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]

---

We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:

"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"

---

Well, he is right that we have no more missiles and ammo. We also dont have the industrial capacity to make more misslies and ammo to supply Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It would probably take 10 years to get stockpiles up to fight these wars.

---

Dude. Russia has a smaller economy than TEXAS.

---

And a per capita income like mexico

Which is why its hard to understand the endless freakouts about the danger of RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!

Its a poor country with 25% still not having indoor toilets and is in rapid demographic collapse.

Its not a world power

---

Except they still have 5500 nuclear warheads. That does get your attention.

---

Well sure it does

Another reason not to intentionally spark off a nuclear war with them.

Especially over some non-important place like Ukraine.

Imagine nearly getting in a nuclear war with China over Mongolia....its insane

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.

Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.

---

Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,

---

[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:

US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:

Quote:

---

Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.

---

Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]

---

dude, you are engaging in the worst form of cherry picking. I showed you the facts. Ukraine has fought the war thus far with OLD MEN. They have not yet tapped their under-30 demographic. They have MILLIONS of young men to tap. And they are.

The limitation Ukraine faces right now is AMMUNITION. That has been rectified for a a good long while. Expect Russian advances to stop. Expect Russia to give all/most of it back in the coming weeks. And expect attrition of Russian soldiers and supply lines to accelerate.

---

This will of course be so wrong

Fre3dombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.

Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.

---

Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,

---

[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:

US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:

Quote:

---

Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.

---

Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]

---

dude, you are engaging in the worst form of cherry picking. I showed you the facts. Ukraine has fought the war thus far with OLD MEN. They have not yet tapped their under-30 demographic. They have MILLIONS of young men to tap. And they are.

The limitation Ukraine faces right now is AMMUNITION. That has been rectified for a a good long while. Expect Russian advances to stop. Expect Russia to give all/most of it back in the coming weeks. And expect attrition of Russian soldiers and supply lines to accelerate.

---

This will of course be so wrong

---

Expect more of the same promises and excuses six months from now.

muddybrazos said:

---

whiterock said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.

Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.

---

Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,

---

[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:

US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:

Quote:

---

Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.

---

Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]

---

We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:

"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"

---

Well, he is right that we have no more missiles and ammo. We also dont have the industrial capacity to make more misslies and ammo to supply Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It would probably take 10 years to get stockpiles up to fight these wars.

---

Not true. We have industrial capacity to spare.

We are currently operating on peacetime replenishment rates.....industrial capacity to maintain existing stocks, to replace outdated stocks, and develop new systems. We can, with he flick of a pen, expand production by orders of magnitude. Defense industries are not going to tool up for more capacity unless they get confirmed long-term contracts in hand. If Biden will just sign the purchase orders, the flow can double, triple, etc......

Russia, on the other hand, has almost fully mobilized its industry. Whatever you think Russian capacity is, multiply it times 20x and that's what Nato can do.

Dude. Russia has a smaller economy than TEXAS.

---

We have sent almost all of our war stocks, weapons systems and ammunition to Ukraine.

We don't have a great deal left.

The war in Ukraine is lost.

Make Peace you fools!

— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) November 24, 2023

I'm just going by what I heard from Macgregor 6 months ago. Dont we have less manufacturing capability than we had say 10 or 20 years ago thanks to green BS offshoring our factories?

---

McGregor is a grandstanding blow-hard pandering to an available audience of gullible skeptics.

He's trying to make you think the cupboards are bare. They're not. Literally, the stocks we've given Ukraine are old, outdated systems at or near the end of their service life. We can pay to store them. We can pay to demil them. Or we can send them to Ukraine and let them "go away naturally" over the course of war. Most of what we've done is the latter. We have 2000 Bradleys in storage, are scrapping hundreds of them every year, and are STILL BUILDING MORE. We've been giving away Strykers and MRAPs to local law enforcement for years. We are selling billions of dollars of tanks, weapons systems, ammunition all around the globe...to Israel, to Romania, to Poland. Poles took a big chunk of the M1 Abrams tanks the USMC ditched as part of force restructuring.

The fact is, Ukraine's needs are, relative to the size of our military and available stocks (active and storage), are not taxing at all. They have not taken any more "stuff" than we would have destroyed or donated (or sold) every year on a normal basis. So the only contexts in which those transfers have have an impact on force readiness would be that transfers to Ukraine are preventing us from building additional stocks, and/or are preventing us from retaining older stuff for longer periods to prepare for anticipated conflicts. And even than overstates it. the HIMARS rounds we've transferred? They're some of the earliest variants with very short range and basic capabilities. and that's BEFORE we talk about any kind of mobilization of industry. We are still producing at peace-time levels, and could with the execution of a few purchase get industry to commit to drastic increase in production capablity.

We are literally dealing to Ukraine from the bottom of our deck at a rate considerably below our ability to replace NOW. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is misinformed or misleading you.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

Bad politics to ignore the will of the American people by ignoring their needs over that of a country most still can't find on a map.

Bad politics to pretend that most Americans are willing to pay for Ukraine's defense indefinitely.

However it's horrible politics to attempt to drag the American people into still another war. We have seen THAT routine enough to know better.

---

I said the same thing last year as I complained about Biden slow-walking the aid. We do not have indefinite amounts of time. We need to give Ukraine what it needs to win while we still have public support to do so.

Sam Lowry said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

whiterock said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.

Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.

---

Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,

---

[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:

US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:

Quote:

---

Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.

---

Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]

---

We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:

"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"

---

Well, he is right that we have no more missiles and ammo. We also dont have the industrial capacity to make more misslies and ammo to supply Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It would probably take 10 years to get stockpiles up to fight these wars.

---

Not true. We have industrial capacity to spare.

We are currently operating on peacetime replenishment rates.....industrial capacity to maintain existing stocks, to replace outdated stocks, and develop new systems. We can, with he flick of a pen, expand production by orders of magnitude. Defense industries are not going to tool up for more capacity unless they get confirmed long-term contracts in hand. If Biden will just sign the purchase orders, the flow can double, triple, etc......

Russia, on the other hand, has almost fully mobilized its industry. Whatever you think Russian capacity is, multiply it times 20x and that's what Nato can do.

Dude. Russia has a smaller economy than TEXAS.

---

We have sent almost all of our war stocks, weapons systems and ammunition to Ukraine.

We don't have a great deal left.

The war in Ukraine is lost.

Make Peace you fools!

— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) November 24, 2023

I'm just going by what I heard from Macgregor 6 months ago. Dont we have less manufacturing capability than we had say 10 or 20 years ago thanks to green BS offshoring our factories?

---

Nah, we don't need factories…just the flick of a pen!

---

A flick of a pen is all it takes. We have plenty of factories, but they are not going to restructure to increase production capacity unless they have SIGNED PURCHASE ORDERS to justify the investment.

Fre3dombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

BaylorGuy314 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.

Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.

---

Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,

---

[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:

US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:

Quote:

---

Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.

---

Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]

---

dude, you are engaging in the worst form of cherry picking. I showed you the facts. Ukraine has fought the war thus far with OLD MEN. They have not yet tapped their under-30 demographic. They have MILLIONS of young men to tap. And they are.

The limitation Ukraine faces right now is AMMUNITION. That has been rectified for a a good long while. Expect Russian advances to stop. Expect Russia to give all/most of it back in the coming weeks. And expect attrition of Russian soldiers and supply lines to accelerate.

---

This will of course be so wrong

---

except it's been documented on this tread as a statistical fact.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

Bad politics to ignore the will of the American people by ignoring their needs over that of a country most still can't find on a map.

Bad politics to pretend that most Americans are willing to pay for Ukraine's defense indefinitely.

However it's horrible politics to attempt to drag the American people into still another war. We have seen THAT routine enough to know better.

---

I said the same thing last year as I complained about Biden slow-walking the aid. We do not have indefinite amounts of time. We need to give Ukraine what it needs to win while we still have public support to do so.

---

You're kidding right ?

More than anything else Ukraine needs bodies willing to fight and die. Who is going to supply that ?

The majority of Americans do not support giving Ukraine billions every year. Period.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

Bad politics to ignore the will of the American people by ignoring their needs over that of a country most still can't find on a map.

Bad politics to pretend that most Americans are willing to pay for Ukraine's defense indefinitely.

However it's horrible politics to attempt to drag the American people into still another war. We have seen THAT routine enough to know better.

---

I said the same thing last year as I complained about Biden slow-walking the aid. We do not have indefinite amounts of time. We need to give Ukraine what it needs to win while we still have public support to do so.

---

You're kidding right ?

More than anything else Ukraine needs bodies willing to fight and die. Who is going to supply that ?

The majority of Americans do not support giving Ukraine billions every year. Period.

---

Do you happen to be an overweight, alcoholic Russian general? Because you think just like one

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

Bad politics to ignore the will of the American people by ignoring their needs over that of a country most still can't find on a map.

Bad politics to pretend that most Americans are willing to pay for Ukraine's defense indefinitely.

However it's horrible politics to attempt to drag the American people into still another war. We have seen THAT routine enough to know better.

---

I said the same thing last year as I complained about Biden slow-walking the aid. We do not have indefinite amounts of time. We need to give Ukraine what it needs to win while we still have public support to do so.

---

You're kidding right ?

More than anything else Ukraine needs bodies willing to fight and die. Who is going to supply that ?

The majority of Americans do not support giving Ukraine billions every year. Period.

---

Do you happen to be an overweight, alcoholic Russian general? Because you think just like one

---

Do you happen to be a lonely , under employed, goofus incapable of rational thought ?

You certainly post like one.

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

Bad politics to ignore the will of the American people by ignoring their needs over that of a country most still can't find on a map.

Bad politics to pretend that most Americans are willing to pay for Ukraine's defense indefinitely.

However it's horrible politics to attempt to drag the American people into still another war. We have seen THAT routine enough to know better.

---

I said the same thing last year as I complained about Biden slow-walking the aid. We do not have indefinite amounts of time. We need to give Ukraine what it needs to win while we still have public support to do so.

---

You're kidding right ?

More than anything else Ukraine needs bodies willing to fight and die. Who is going to supply that ?

The majority of Americans do not support giving Ukraine billions every year. Period.

---

Do you happen to be an overweight, alcoholic Russian general? Because you think just like one

---

Do you happen to be a lonely , under employed, goofus incapable of rational thought ?

You certainly post like one.

---

No, but those are my life goals

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

Bad politics to ignore the will of the American people by ignoring their needs over that of a country most still can't find on a map.

Bad politics to pretend that most Americans are willing to pay for Ukraine's defense indefinitely.

However it's horrible politics to attempt to drag the American people into still another war. We have seen THAT routine enough to know better.

---

I said the same thing last year as I complained about Biden slow-walking the aid. We do not have indefinite amounts of time. We need to give Ukraine what it needs to win while we still have public support to do so.

---

You're kidding right ?

More than anything else Ukraine needs bodies willing to fight and die. Who is going to supply that ?

The majority of Americans do not support giving Ukraine billions every year. Period.

---

Do you happen to be an overweight, alcoholic Russian general? Because you think just like one

---

Do you happen to be a lonely , under employed, goofus incapable of rational thought ?

You certainly post like one.

---

No, but those are my life goals

---

Goals reached.

whiterock said:

---

A flick of a pen is all it takes. We have plenty of factories, but they are not going to restructure to increase production capacity unless they have SIGNED PURCHASE ORDERS to justify the investment.

---

As I've pointed out, Mike Johnson spilled the beans when he said most of the appropriation was to pay off existing bills. Anyone expecting a sudden windfall of ammo or equipment will likely be disappointed.

Restructuring takes time. If we were serious about winning, we should have figured it out long ago.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A flick of a pen is all it takes. We have plenty of factories, but they are not going to restructure to increase production capacity unless they have SIGNED PURCHASE ORDERS to justify the investment.

---

As I've pointed out, Mike Johnson spilled the beans when he said most of the appropriation was to pay off existing bills. Anyone expecting a sudden windfall of ammo or equipment will likely be disappointed.

Restructuring takes time. If we were serious about winning, we should have figured it out long ago.

---

Where did you see this?

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A flick of a pen is all it takes. We have plenty of factories, but they are not going to restructure to increase production capacity unless they have SIGNED PURCHASE ORDERS to justify the investment.

---

As I've pointed out, Mike Johnson spilled the beans when he said most of the appropriation was to pay off existing bills. Anyone expecting a sudden windfall of ammo or equipment will likely be disappointed.

Restructuring takes time. If we were serious about winning, we should have figured it out long ago.

---

Where did you see this?

---

I misremembered. He actually said it was to replenish our own stocks. I thought he said to pay off existing bills, meaning the manufacturers were providing supplies on credit and had to be paid off. It could well be a combination of the two. Anyway, whether we're re-supplying ourselves or paying off creditors, the implication is the same. We're tapped out, and even with this bill we probably shouldn't expect large amounts of weapons or ammo to be immediately available for Ukraine.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A flick of a pen is all it takes. We have plenty of factories, but they are not going to restructure to increase production capacity unless they have SIGNED PURCHASE ORDERS to justify the investment.

---

As I've pointed out, Mike Johnson spilled the beans when he said most of the appropriation was to pay off existing bills. Anyone expecting a sudden windfall of ammo or equipment will likely be disappointed.

Restructuring takes time. If we were serious about winning, we should have figured it out long ago.

---

Where did you see this?

---

I misremembered. He actually said it was to replenish our own stocks. I thought he said to pay off existing bills, meaning the manufacturers were providing supplies on credit and had to be paid off. It could well be a combination of the two. Anyway, whether we're re-supplying ourselves or paying off creditors, the implication is the same. We're tapped out, and even with this bill we probably shouldn't expect large amounts of weapons or ammo to be immediately available for Ukraine.

---

I do it al the time, thanks for responding. Yes, a lot of it goes to our own companies.

I do disagree on the weapons, though. A good chunk is already on its way, including much needed ammo and air defense. And more long range missiles, many of which were already in Europe.

You and I agree that it is far from certain whether this will turn the tide. The next few weeks could tell us a lot, if reports of Russia expediting its broad offensive are true.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

Bad politics to ignore the will of the American people by ignoring their needs over that of a country most still can't find on a map.

Bad politics to pretend that most Americans are willing to pay for Ukraine's defense indefinitely.

However it's horrible politics to attempt to drag the American people into still another war. We have seen THAT routine enough to know better.

---

I said the same thing last year as I complained about Biden slow-walking the aid. We do not have indefinite amounts of time. We need to give Ukraine what it needs to win while we still have public support to do so.

---

You're kidding right ?

More than anything else Ukraine needs bodies willing to fight and die. Who is going to supply that ?
Wrong, sir. Ukraine has millions of bodies available to draft. It has purposely chosen thus far to fight with people above age 30, in order to limit the damage to future demography. That law was recently changed, lowering the age (IIRC) to 26.


The majority of Americans do not support giving Ukraine billions every year. Period.
Also flatly wrong. The polling 50-50 on that specific question (are we spending too much). It was 46-46 in the last one I saw a couple of days ago. Polling numbers are much higher on the more generic question of "should we be supporting Ukraine."

---

You are correct to worry about deficits and debt levels, but a very small minority of voters feel that way. I am a macro guy and am far more sympathetic to your concerns than it might appear. But I'm also smart enough (as are you) to understand that cutting off Ukraine will have about a tenth-of-a-percentage-point impact on deficits. That is a terrible benefit to seek when it guarantees even higher levels of defense spending in the future while elevating risk of hot-war with Russia.

WWIII is already underway, buddy. Just refusing to engage in it for reasons which cannot escape the orbit of harrumph is the dumbest thing imaginable. You are smarter than this.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A flick of a pen is all it takes. We have plenty of factories, but they are not going to restructure to increase production capacity unless they have SIGNED PURCHASE ORDERS to justify the investment.

---

As I've pointed out, Mike Johnson spilled the beans when he said most of the appropriation was to pay off existing bills. Anyone expecting a sudden windfall of ammo or equipment will likely be disappointed.

Restructuring takes time. If we were serious about winning, we should have figured it out long ago.

---

Where did you see this?

---

I misremembered. He actually said it was to replenish our own stocks. I thought he said to pay off existing bills, meaning the manufacturers were providing supplies on credit and had to be paid off. It could well be a combination of the two. Anyway, whether we're re-supplying ourselves or paying off creditors, the implication is the same. We're tapped out, and even with this bill we probably shouldn't expect large amounts of weapons or ammo to be immediately available for Ukraine.

---

Quite a bit worse than "misremembered." $1b worth of ammo is already pre-positioned and will arrive in days. Millions more of rounds of "stuff" are now headed to Ukraine, plus longer range ATACMS capability, Patriot systems, etc....... Russia's 10-1 advantage in big fires will be erased for several months. This changes tactical pressures on Ukrainian manpower and will make it very difficult for Russia to hold its recent gains, much less make advances.

Anyone who wants to figure out the benefits of the aid can easily find it in google search.......

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

---

Your article confirms what I said. $1 billion for immediate aid, $8 billion in additional PDA, and tens of billions -- by far the bulk of the appropriation -- to replace weapons already sent.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

---

Your article confirms what I said. $1 billion for immediate aid, $8 billion in additional PDA, and tens of billions -- by far the bulk of the appropriation -- to replace weapons already sent.

---

LOL, uh...nope. You are (again) missing the details.

$29b...half is direct war-fighting aid, $14b of which is for lethal stuff (arms/ammo), and $15b of which is for combat support (meals, meds, commo, uniforms, training, intel, etc.....). Replenishment monies are about a third. The rest is non-military aid to Ukrainian Govt.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-senate-china-d7b4846de76a1dfe5d2207b7eb6eeead

The "replenishment" number hints at what you missed = Presidential Drawdown Authority. PDA has its own annual statutory cap = $11b. POTUS can, on his own judgment, give up to $11b or military aid wherever he/she sees fit. The replenishment funding in the bill is merely restocking what was given last year under under the 2023 PDA limit That, of course, means that Biden now has another $11b in PDA authority for FY 2024 IN ADDITION to the funding in the aid bill. Some of that will go to Taiwan and/or Israel, but one could reasonably expect the lion's share to go to Ukraine.

The $1b in lethal aid already prepositioned for delivery in hours is under PDA.

The replenishment provided in the bill means that, from a military readiness standpoint, we have enough inventory to provide $11b in aid without affecting our own readiness.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

---

Your article confirms what I said. $1 billion for immediate aid, $8 billion in additional PDA, and tens of billions -- by far the bulk of the appropriation -- to replace weapons already sent.

---

LOL, uh...nope. You are (again) missing the details.

$29b...half is direct war-fighting aid, $14b of which is for lethal stuff (arms/ammo), and $15b of which is for combat support (meals, meds, commo, uniforms, training, intel, etc.....). Replenishment monies are about a third. The rest is non-military aid to Ukrainian Govt.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-senate-china-d7b4846de76a1dfe5d2207b7eb6eeead

The "replenishment" number hints at what you missed = Presidential Drawdown Authority. PDA has its own annual statutory cap = $11b. POTUS can, on his own judgment, give up to $11b or military aid wherever he/she sees fit. The replenishment funding in the bill is merely restocking what was given last year under under the 2023 PDA limit That, of course, means that Biden now has another $11b in PDA authority for FY 2024 IN ADDITION to the funding in the aid bill. Some of that will go to Taiwan and/or Israel, but one could reasonably expect the lion's share to go to Ukraine.

The $1b in lethal aid already prepositioned for delivery in hours is under PDA.

The replenishment provided in the bill means that, from a military readiness standpoint, we have enough inventory to provide $11b in aid without affecting our own readiness.

---

$23 billion of the appropriation is to replace weapons that have already been delivered.. Perhaps another $4 billion pays for weapons in the process of being delivered. Only about $10 billion represents weapons yet to be produced and shipped.

Bottom line, most of this aid is already on the battlefield.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

---

Your article confirms what I said. $1 billion for immediate aid, $8 billion in additional PDA, and tens of billions -- by far the bulk of the appropriation -- to replace weapons already sent.

---

LOL, uh...nope. You are (again) missing the details.

$29b...half is direct war-fighting aid, $14b of which is for lethal stuff (arms/ammo), and $15b of which is for combat support (meals, meds, commo, uniforms, training, intel, etc.....). Replenishment monies are about a third. The rest is non-military aid to Ukrainian Govt.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-senate-china-d7b4846de76a1dfe5d2207b7eb6eeead

The "replenishment" number hints at what you missed = Presidential Drawdown Authority. PDA has its own annual statutory cap = $11b. POTUS can, on his own judgment, give up to $11b or military aid wherever he/she sees fit. The replenishment funding in the bill is merely restocking what was given last year under under the 2023 PDA limit That, of course, means that Biden now has another $11b in PDA authority for FY 2024 IN ADDITION to the funding in the aid bill. Some of that will go to Taiwan and/or Israel, but one could reasonably expect the lion's share to go to Ukraine.

The $1b in lethal aid already prepositioned for delivery in hours is under PDA.

The replenishment provided in the bill means that, from a military readiness standpoint, we have enough inventory to provide $11b in aid without affecting our own readiness.

---

$23 billion of the appropriation is to replace weapons that have already been delivered.. Perhaps another $4 billion pays for weapons in the process of being delivered. Only about $10 billion represents weapons yet to be produced and shipped.

Bottom line, most of this aid is already on the battlefield.

---

LOL uh, no. $23b to replace military aid given under 2022 and 2023 PDA, and $29b additional military aid for 2024.

and the $23B funding to replenish US stocks means that we ALSO have the materiel to provide another $11B in PDA for 2024 (with room for an additional $11B in 2025).

Your Russian delusions are seriously affecting your reading comprehension,. In fairness, that is perhaps compounded by ignorance about PDA. PDA is an authorization, not a funding source. So POTUS can give away up to $11b worth of stuff in inventory (anywhere, any time, any reason) per fiscal year, but it has to be stuff already in inventory and he must get Congressional authority to fund replacements (if needed). So 100% of the +3500 M1 Abrahms in storage, the +2000 Bradleys in storage, the +10000 F-16s in storage, etc....or anything else in the active arsenal are available to transfer immediately, limited only by the value cap ($11B) and POTUS/DOD estimation of how such transfers would affect US readiness. IF that equipment needs to be replaced, POTUS would need to request funding to do so from Congress.

In other words, the $60b in aid to Ukraine is actually $71b.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

---

Your article confirms what I said. $1 billion for immediate aid, $8 billion in additional PDA, and tens of billions -- by far the bulk of the appropriation -- to replace weapons already sent.

---

LOL, uh...nope. You are (again) missing the details.

$29b...half is direct war-fighting aid, $14b of which is for lethal stuff (arms/ammo), and $15b of which is for combat support (meals, meds, commo, uniforms, training, intel, etc.....). Replenishment monies are about a third. The rest is non-military aid to Ukrainian Govt.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-senate-china-d7b4846de76a1dfe5d2207b7eb6eeead

The "replenishment" number hints at what you missed = Presidential Drawdown Authority. PDA has its own annual statutory cap = $11b. POTUS can, on his own judgment, give up to $11b or military aid wherever he/she sees fit. The replenishment funding in the bill is merely restocking what was given last year under under the 2023 PDA limit That, of course, means that Biden now has another $11b in PDA authority for FY 2024 IN ADDITION to the funding in the aid bill. Some of that will go to Taiwan and/or Israel, but one could reasonably expect the lion's share to go to Ukraine.

The $1b in lethal aid already prepositioned for delivery in hours is under PDA.

The replenishment provided in the bill means that, from a military readiness standpoint, we have enough inventory to provide $11b in aid without affecting our own readiness.

---

$23 billion of the appropriation is to replace weapons that have already been delivered.. Perhaps another $4 billion pays for weapons in the process of being delivered. Only about $10 billion represents weapons yet to be produced and shipped.

Bottom line, most of this aid is already on the battlefield.

---

PDA is an authorization, not a funding source.

---

That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. PDA doesn't cause weapons to magically appear. You seem to think all those Abrams, F-16s, etc. are just sitting around waiting to be distributed whenever and wherever. Kind of like you think our massive GDP number means we can produce anything we want overnight and automatically win the arms race with the flick of a pen. The reality is that our resources are allocated in certain ways, and diverting them involves a trade-off. It affects readiness long before the number of stocks reaches zero. As Mearsheimer and others have pointed out, there's no sign that we have large numbers of the needed stocks available to give to Ukraine. Apparently we have more Bradleys than we know what to do with, so we're handing out a lot of them. Unfortunately that isn't what Ukraine needs right now.

By the way, bear in mind that when this package fails to turn the tide -- and it will fail -- you're going to be obliged to belittle it and accuse Biden of "slow-walking" and "trickling out the aid." So you might want to think twice before over-hyping it too much. Just saying.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

---

Your article confirms what I said. $1 billion for immediate aid, $8 billion in additional PDA, and tens of billions -- by far the bulk of the appropriation -- to replace weapons already sent.

---

LOL, uh...nope. You are (again) missing the details.

$29b...half is direct war-fighting aid, $14b of which is for lethal stuff (arms/ammo), and $15b of which is for combat support (meals, meds, commo, uniforms, training, intel, etc.....). Replenishment monies are about a third. The rest is non-military aid to Ukrainian Govt.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-senate-china-d7b4846de76a1dfe5d2207b7eb6eeead

The "replenishment" number hints at what you missed = Presidential Drawdown Authority. PDA has its own annual statutory cap = $11b. POTUS can, on his own judgment, give up to $11b or military aid wherever he/she sees fit. The replenishment funding in the bill is merely restocking what was given last year under under the 2023 PDA limit That, of course, means that Biden now has another $11b in PDA authority for FY 2024 IN ADDITION to the funding in the aid bill. Some of that will go to Taiwan and/or Israel, but one could reasonably expect the lion's share to go to Ukraine.

The $1b in lethal aid already prepositioned for delivery in hours is under PDA.

The replenishment provided in the bill means that, from a military readiness standpoint, we have enough inventory to provide $11b in aid without affecting our own readiness.

---

$23 billion of the appropriation is to replace weapons that have already been delivered.. Perhaps another $4 billion pays for weapons in the process of being delivered. Only about $10 billion represents weapons yet to be produced and shipped.

Bottom line, most of this aid is already on the battlefield.

---

PDA is an authorization, not a funding source.

---

That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. PDA doesn't cause weapons to magically appear.
LOL Good Grief, Sam!!! PDA does indeed make weapons magically appear. We pull them today out of existing inventory and ship them tomorrow directly to the battlefield. That is precisely the purpose of PDA...emergency capability to respond first and get funding later.

You seem to think all those Abrams, F-16s, etc. are just sitting around waiting to be distributed whenever and wherever.
Indeed they are. We pulled 400 M1 Abrahms off-line with the USMC and sold them to Poland last year. We could have shipped all of them to Ukraine and let Poland purchase new models off the production line. We have THOUSANDS of Abrahms and Bradleys in active service and could spare a few hundred for a few months until we pull a corresponding number of out of the boneyards (where we have THOUSANDS of each in storage). Your disconnect with reality here is orbital.

Kind of like you think our massive GDP number means we can produce anything we want overnight and automatically win the arms race with the flick of a pen.
It most certainly does. And if we sign a big enough purchase order, ordnance manufacturers will add capacity which will be on line in a few months. Lockheed fired up a new production line for F-16s in Nov 2022. You know how that started? With the flick of a pen. They produced 8 last year and will be at a rate of 4 per month (48/yr) by 2025. The quicker you flick the pen, the quicker that kind of production happens.


The reality is that our resources are allocated in certain ways, and diverting them involves a trade-off. It affects readiness long before the number of stocks reaches zero.
Dude. The numbers involved in our aid to Ukraine are a pin-***** on our readiness. Only a handful of missile systems are even in question.

As Mearsheimer and others have pointed out, there's no sign that we have large numbers of the needed stocks available to give to Ukraine. Apparently we have more Bradleys than we know what to do with, so we're handing out a lot of them. Unfortunately that isn't what Ukraine needs right now.
Your argument presumes that we are already at full capacity short of full mobilization. That is comically incorrect. Our suppliers have to make a profit. To do that, they have to tool up for peacetime replenishment programs - replacement of old systems due to shelf-life or technological obsolescence issues. They can 2x, 3x, 4x and more if we commit to purchase enough to justify the investment. All it takes is a purchase order and they will do it. See the F-16 example above. 14 months to full production on one of the more complicated things we make. 155m arty rounds are terribly simple things. Increase in orders of magnitude would take weeks to accomplish. All it takes i the flick of a pen.

By the way, bear in mind that when this package fails to turn the tide -- and it will fail -- you're going to be obliged to belittle it and accuse Biden of "slow-walking" and "trickling out the aid." So you might want to think twice before over-hyping it too much. Just saying.
He has been slow-walking the aid. Ukrainian pilots should have been in F-16 training BEFORE Russia invaded. (We do want to sell F-16s, don't we?) It is profoundly stupid that we did not do it immediately after the war started.

---

Our massive GDP does indeed mean that with the signature of a purchase order, factories start building production of ordnance and weapons systems at a rates Russia cannot hope to match. Their economy is smaller than Texas, yet you are trying to make the case that it is the USA which is resource constrained. Far from it. Our limitation is the wisdom of the current POTUS, who has a policy of "however long it takes" instead of "BOHICA, buddy."

Put down the shovel, Sam! You really do not understand the subject material at all. The moment a POTUS signs the purchase order to as much as double our production of arty and missile rounds, Russia will pivot to diplomacy. They know they cannot compete. Their only hope is that the anti-war argument wins out in western Parliaments.

Here's the strategic lesson you are missing:
Nato peacetime replenishment production capacity is sufficient to match Russia military production at full mobilziation. The path to victory here is quite elementary.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

Bad politics to ignore the will of the American people by ignoring their needs over that of a country most still can't find on a map.

Bad politics to pretend that most Americans are willing to pay for Ukraine's defense indefinitely.

However it's horrible politics to attempt to drag the American people into still another war. We have seen THAT routine enough to know better.

---

I said the same thing last year as I complained about Biden slow-walking the aid. We do not have indefinite amounts of time. We need to give Ukraine what it needs to win while we still have public support to do so.

---

Public support to Do so lolololol

I hadn't seen a Ukraine flag in 2 years lol

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A flick of a pen is all it takes. We have plenty of factories, but they are not going to restructure to increase production capacity unless they have SIGNED PURCHASE ORDERS to justify the investment.

---

As I've pointed out, Mike Johnson spilled the beans when he said most of the appropriation was to pay off existing bills. Anyone expecting a sudden windfall of ammo or equipment will likely be disappointed.

Restructuring takes time. If we were serious about winning, we should have figured it out long ago.

---

Where did you see this?

---

I misremembered. He actually said it was to replenish our own stocks. I thought he said to pay off existing bills, meaning the manufacturers were providing supplies on credit and had to be paid off. It could well be a combination of the two. Anyway, whether we're re-supplying ourselves or paying off creditors, the implication is the same. We're tapped out, and even with this bill we probably shouldn't expect large amounts of weapons or ammo to be immediately available for Ukraine.

---

Quite a bit worse than "misremembered." $1b worth of ammo is already pre-positioned and will arrive in days. Millions more of rounds of "stuff" are now headed to Ukraine, plus longer range ATACMS capability, Patriot systems, etc....... Russia's 10-1 advantage in big fires will be erased for several months. This changes tactical pressures on Ukrainian manpower and will make it very difficult for Russia to hold its recent gains, much less make advances.

Anyone who wants to figure out the benefits of the aid can easily find it in google search.......

---

So around election time putin will be turning tail in abject failure and defeat at the hands of mental giants Obama and Biden?

Popcorn

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

---

Your article confirms what I said. $1 billion for immediate aid, $8 billion in additional PDA, and tens of billions -- by far the bulk of the appropriation -- to replace weapons already sent.

---

LOL, uh...nope. You are (again) missing the details.

$29b...half is direct war-fighting aid, $14b of which is for lethal stuff (arms/ammo), and $15b of which is for combat support (meals, meds, commo, uniforms, training, intel, etc.....). Replenishment monies are about a third. The rest is non-military aid to Ukrainian Govt.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-senate-china-d7b4846de76a1dfe5d2207b7eb6eeead

The "replenishment" number hints at what you missed = Presidential Drawdown Authority. PDA has its own annual statutory cap = $11b. POTUS can, on his own judgment, give up to $11b or military aid wherever he/she sees fit. The replenishment funding in the bill is merely restocking what was given last year under under the 2023 PDA limit That, of course, means that Biden now has another $11b in PDA authority for FY 2024 IN ADDITION to the funding in the aid bill. Some of that will go to Taiwan and/or Israel, but one could reasonably expect the lion's share to go to Ukraine.

The $1b in lethal aid already prepositioned for delivery in hours is under PDA.

The replenishment provided in the bill means that, from a military readiness standpoint, we have enough inventory to provide $11b in aid without affecting our own readiness.

---

$23 billion of the appropriation is to replace weapons that have already been delivered.. Perhaps another $4 billion pays for weapons in the process of being delivered. Only about $10 billion represents weapons yet to be produced and shipped.

Bottom line, most of this aid is already on the battlefield.

---

PDA is an authorization, not a funding source.

---

That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. PDA doesn't cause weapons to magically appear.
LOL Good Grief, Sam!!! PDA does indeed make weapons magically appear. We pull them today out of existing inventory and ship them tomorrow directly to the battlefield. That is precisely the purpose of PDA...emergency capability to respond first and get funding later.

You seem to think all those Abrams, F-16s, etc. are just sitting around waiting to be distributed whenever and wherever.
Indeed they are. We pulled 400 M1 Abrahms off-line with the USMC and sold them to Poland last year. We could have shipped all of them to Ukraine and let Poland purchase new models off the production line. We have THOUSANDS of Abrahms and Bradleys in active service and could spare a few hundred for a few months until we pull a corresponding number of out of the boneyards (where we have THOUSANDS of each in storage). Your disconnect with reality here is orbital.

Kind of like you think our massive GDP number means we can produce anything we want overnight and automatically win the arms race with the flick of a pen.
It most certainly does. And if we sign a big enough purchase order, ordnance manufacturers will add capacity which will be on line in a few months. Lockheed fired up a new production line for F-16s in Nov 2022. You know how that started? With the flick of a pen. They produced 8 last year and will be at a rate of 4 per month (48/yr) by 2025. The quicker you flick the pen, the quicker that kind of production happens.


The reality is that our resources are allocated in certain ways, and diverting them involves a trade-off. It affects readiness long before the number of stocks reaches zero.
Dude. The numbers involved in our aid to Ukraine are a pin-***** on our readiness. Only a handful of missile systems are even in question.

As Mearsheimer and others have pointed out, there's no sign that we have large numbers of the needed stocks available to give to Ukraine. Apparently we have more Bradleys than we know what to do with, so we're handing out a lot of them. Unfortunately that isn't what Ukraine needs right now.
Your argument presumes that we are already at full capacity short of full mobilization. That is comically incorrect. Our suppliers have to make a profit. To do that, they have to tool up for peacetime replenishment programs - replacement of old systems due to shelf-life or technological obsolescence issues. They can 2x, 3x, 4x and more if we commit to purchase enough to justify the investment. All it takes is a purchase order and they will do it. See the F-16 example above. 14 months to full production on one of the more complicated things we make. 155m arty rounds are terribly simple things. Increase in orders of magnitude would take weeks to accomplish. All it takes i the flick of a pen.

By the way, bear in mind that when this package fails to turn the tide -- and it will fail -- you're going to be obliged to belittle it and accuse Biden of "slow-walking" and "trickling out the aid." So you might want to think twice before over-hyping it too much. Just saying.
He has been slow-walking the aid. Ukrainian pilots should have been in F-16 training BEFORE Russia invaded. (We do want to sell F-16s, don't we?) It is profoundly stupid that we did not do it immediately after the war started.

---

Our massive GDP does indeed mean that with the signature of a purchase order, factories start building production of ordnance and weapons systems at a rates Russia cannot hope to match. Their economy is smaller than Texas, yet you are trying to make the case that it is the USA which is resource constrained. Far from it….

The moment a POTUS signs the purchase order to as much as double our production of arty and missile rounds, Russia will pivot to diplomacy.

---

Now you are starting to get it

Russia is NOT, and it will never be, a major threat to the USA

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

---

Your article confirms what I said. $1 billion for immediate aid, $8 billion in additional PDA, and tens of billions -- by far the bulk of the appropriation -- to replace weapons already sent.

---

LOL, uh...nope. You are (again) missing the details.

$29b...half is direct war-fighting aid, $14b of which is for lethal stuff (arms/ammo), and $15b of which is for combat support (meals, meds, commo, uniforms, training, intel, etc.....). Replenishment monies are about a third. The rest is non-military aid to Ukrainian Govt.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-senate-china-d7b4846de76a1dfe5d2207b7eb6eeead

The "replenishment" number hints at what you missed = Presidential Drawdown Authority. PDA has its own annual statutory cap = $11b. POTUS can, on his own judgment, give up to $11b or military aid wherever he/she sees fit. The replenishment funding in the bill is merely restocking what was given last year under under the 2023 PDA limit That, of course, means that Biden now has another $11b in PDA authority for FY 2024 IN ADDITION to the funding in the aid bill. Some of that will go to Taiwan and/or Israel, but one could reasonably expect the lion's share to go to Ukraine.

The $1b in lethal aid already prepositioned for delivery in hours is under PDA.

The replenishment provided in the bill means that, from a military readiness standpoint, we have enough inventory to provide $11b in aid without affecting our own readiness.

---

$23 billion of the appropriation is to replace weapons that have already been delivered.. Perhaps another $4 billion pays for weapons in the process of being delivered. Only about $10 billion represents weapons yet to be produced and shipped.

Bottom line, most of this aid is already on the battlefield.

---

PDA is an authorization, not a funding source.

---

That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. PDA doesn't cause weapons to magically appear.
LOL Good Grief, Sam!!! PDA does indeed make weapons magically appear. We pull them today out of existing inventory and ship them tomorrow directly to the battlefield. That is precisely the purpose of PDA...emergency capability to respond first and get funding later.

You seem to think all those Abrams, F-16s, etc. are just sitting around waiting to be distributed whenever and wherever.
Indeed they are. We pulled 400 M1 Abrahms off-line with the USMC and sold them to Poland last year. We could have shipped all of them to Ukraine and let Poland purchase new models off the production line. We have THOUSANDS of Abrahms and Bradleys in active service and could spare a few hundred for a few months until we pull a corresponding number of out of the boneyards (where we have THOUSANDS of each in storage). Your disconnect with reality here is orbital.

Kind of like you think our massive GDP number means we can produce anything we want overnight and automatically win the arms race with the flick of a pen.
It most certainly does. And if we sign a big enough purchase order, ordnance manufacturers will add capacity which will be on line in a few months. Lockheed fired up a new production line for F-16s in Nov 2022. You know how that started? With the flick of a pen. They produced 8 last year and will be at a rate of 4 per month (48/yr) by 2025. The quicker you flick the pen, the quicker that kind of production happens.


The reality is that our resources are allocated in certain ways, and diverting them involves a trade-off. It affects readiness long before the number of stocks reaches zero.
Dude. The numbers involved in our aid to Ukraine are a pin-***** on our readiness. Only a handful of missile systems are even in question.

As Mearsheimer and others have pointed out, there's no sign that we have large numbers of the needed stocks available to give to Ukraine. Apparently we have more Bradleys than we know what to do with, so we're handing out a lot of them. Unfortunately that isn't what Ukraine needs right now.
Your argument presumes that we are already at full capacity short of full mobilization. That is comically incorrect. Our suppliers have to make a profit. To do that, they have to tool up for peacetime replenishment programs - replacement of old systems due to shelf-life or technological obsolescence issues. They can 2x, 3x, 4x and more if we commit to purchase enough to justify the investment. All it takes is a purchase order and they will do it. See the F-16 example above. 14 months to full production on one of the more complicated things we make. 155m arty rounds are terribly simple things. Increase in orders of magnitude would take weeks to accomplish. All it takes i the flick of a pen.

By the way, bear in mind that when this package fails to turn the tide -- and it will fail -- you're going to be obliged to belittle it and accuse Biden of "slow-walking" and "trickling out the aid." So you might want to think twice before over-hyping it too much. Just saying.
He has been slow-walking the aid. Ukrainian pilots should have been in F-16 training BEFORE Russia invaded. (We do want to sell F-16s, don't we?) It is profoundly stupid that we did not do it immediately after the war started.

---

Our massive GDP does indeed mean that with the signature of a purchase order, factories start building production of ordnance and weapons systems at a rates Russia cannot hope to match. Their economy is smaller than Texas, yet you are trying to make the case that it is the USA which is resource constrained. Far from it. Our limitation is the wisdom of the current POTUS, who has a policy of "however long it takes" instead of "BOHICA, buddy."

Put down the shovel, Sam! You really do not understand the subject material at all. The moment a POTUS signs the purchase order to as much as double our production of arty and missile rounds, Russia will pivot to diplomacy. They know they cannot compete. Their only hope is that the anti-war argument wins out in western Parliaments.

Here's the strategic lesson you are missing:
Nato peacetime replenishment production capacity is sufficient to match Russia military production at full mobilziation. The path to victory here is quite elementary.

---

Their GDP is actually a bit larger than Canada's. But you really don't understand the economics at all. Russia spent years subsidizing their defense industry and building up surge capacity to prepare for this situation. It would take us even longer, given the obstacles in a profit-based system where funding is unpredictable and inconsistent. The necessary industrial base and supply chains just aren't there.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/02/draft-pentagon-strategy-china-00129764

Fre3dombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

A flick of a pen is all it takes. We have plenty of factories, but they are not going to restructure to increase production capacity unless they have SIGNED PURCHASE ORDERS to justify the investment.

---

As I've pointed out, Mike Johnson spilled the beans when he said most of the appropriation was to pay off existing bills. Anyone expecting a sudden windfall of ammo or equipment will likely be disappointed.

Restructuring takes time. If we were serious about winning, we should have figured it out long ago.

---

Where did you see this?

---

I misremembered. He actually said it was to replenish our own stocks. I thought he said to pay off existing bills, meaning the manufacturers were providing supplies on credit and had to be paid off. It could well be a combination of the two. Anyway, whether we're re-supplying ourselves or paying off creditors, the implication is the same. We're tapped out, and even with this bill we probably shouldn't expect large amounts of weapons or ammo to be immediately available for Ukraine.

---

Quite a bit worse than "misremembered." $1b worth of ammo is already pre-positioned and will arrive in days. Millions more of rounds of "stuff" are now headed to Ukraine, plus longer range ATACMS capability, Patriot systems, etc....... Russia's 10-1 advantage in big fires will be erased for several months. This changes tactical pressures on Ukrainian manpower and will make it very difficult for Russia to hold its recent gains, much less make advances.

Anyone who wants to figure out the benefits of the aid can easily find it in google search.......

---

So around election time putin will be turning tail in abject failure and defeat at the hands of mental giants Obama and Biden?

Popcorn

---

if constructing silly strawman excites you, by all means titillate yourself to your heart's desire.

Fre3dombear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.

---

Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.

Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.

---

I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.

---

Strongly dislike Trump as well.

But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.

---

LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)

It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….

---

Bad politics to ignore the will of the American people by ignoring their needs over that of a country most still can't find on a map.

Bad politics to pretend that most Americans are willing to pay for Ukraine's defense indefinitely.

However it's horrible politics to attempt to drag the American people into still another war. We have seen THAT routine enough to know better.

---

I said the same thing last year as I complained about Biden slow-walking the aid. We do not have indefinite amounts of time. We need to give Ukraine what it needs to win while we still have public support to do so.

---

Public support to Do so lolololol

I hadn't seen a Ukraine flag in 2 years lol

---

Reading comprehension error. Polling is quite clear that the public still wants, by wide margins, Ukraine to win, while it is evenly divided on whether or not we are spending too much or not enough to make that happen. That clearly suggests that the support is down from high levels right after the invasion, and is declining slowly over time. Ergo my last statement "we need to give Ukraine what it needs to win while we still have the support to do so."

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

---

Your article confirms what I said. $1 billion for immediate aid, $8 billion in additional PDA, and tens of billions -- by far the bulk of the appropriation -- to replace weapons already sent.

---

LOL, uh...nope. You are (again) missing the details.

$29b...half is direct war-fighting aid, $14b of which is for lethal stuff (arms/ammo), and $15b of which is for combat support (meals, meds, commo, uniforms, training, intel, etc.....). Replenishment monies are about a third. The rest is non-military aid to Ukrainian Govt.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-senate-china-d7b4846de76a1dfe5d2207b7eb6eeead

The "replenishment" number hints at what you missed = Presidential Drawdown Authority. PDA has its own annual statutory cap = $11b. POTUS can, on his own judgment, give up to $11b or military aid wherever he/she sees fit. The replenishment funding in the bill is merely restocking what was given last year under under the 2023 PDA limit That, of course, means that Biden now has another $11b in PDA authority for FY 2024 IN ADDITION to the funding in the aid bill. Some of that will go to Taiwan and/or Israel, but one could reasonably expect the lion's share to go to Ukraine.

The $1b in lethal aid already prepositioned for delivery in hours is under PDA.

The replenishment provided in the bill means that, from a military readiness standpoint, we have enough inventory to provide $11b in aid without affecting our own readiness.

---

$23 billion of the appropriation is to replace weapons that have already been delivered.. Perhaps another $4 billion pays for weapons in the process of being delivered. Only about $10 billion represents weapons yet to be produced and shipped.

Bottom line, most of this aid is already on the battlefield.

---

PDA is an authorization, not a funding source.

---

That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. PDA doesn't cause weapons to magically appear.
LOL Good Grief, Sam!!! PDA does indeed make weapons magically appear. We pull them today out of existing inventory and ship them tomorrow directly to the battlefield. That is precisely the purpose of PDA...emergency capability to respond first and get funding later.

You seem to think all those Abrams, F-16s, etc. are just sitting around waiting to be distributed whenever and wherever.
Indeed they are. We pulled 400 M1 Abrahms off-line with the USMC and sold them to Poland last year. We could have shipped all of them to Ukraine and let Poland purchase new models off the production line. We have THOUSANDS of Abrahms and Bradleys in active service and could spare a few hundred for a few months until we pull a corresponding number of out of the boneyards (where we have THOUSANDS of each in storage). Your disconnect with reality here is orbital.

Kind of like you think our massive GDP number means we can produce anything we want overnight and automatically win the arms race with the flick of a pen.
It most certainly does. And if we sign a big enough purchase order, ordnance manufacturers will add capacity which will be on line in a few months. Lockheed fired up a new production line for F-16s in Nov 2022. You know how that started? With the flick of a pen. They produced 8 last year and will be at a rate of 4 per month (48/yr) by 2025. The quicker you flick the pen, the quicker that kind of production happens.


The reality is that our resources are allocated in certain ways, and diverting them involves a trade-off. It affects readiness long before the number of stocks reaches zero.
Dude. The numbers involved in our aid to Ukraine are a pin-***** on our readiness. Only a handful of missile systems are even in question.

As Mearsheimer and others have pointed out, there's no sign that we have large numbers of the needed stocks available to give to Ukraine. Apparently we have more Bradleys than we know what to do with, so we're handing out a lot of them. Unfortunately that isn't what Ukraine needs right now.
Your argument presumes that we are already at full capacity short of full mobilization. That is comically incorrect. Our suppliers have to make a profit. To do that, they have to tool up for peacetime replenishment programs - replacement of old systems due to shelf-life or technological obsolescence issues. They can 2x, 3x, 4x and more if we commit to purchase enough to justify the investment. All it takes is a purchase order and they will do it. See the F-16 example above. 14 months to full production on one of the more complicated things we make. 155m arty rounds are terribly simple things. Increase in orders of magnitude would take weeks to accomplish. All it takes i the flick of a pen.

By the way, bear in mind that when this package fails to turn the tide -- and it will fail -- you're going to be obliged to belittle it and accuse Biden of "slow-walking" and "trickling out the aid." So you might want to think twice before over-hyping it too much. Just saying.
He has been slow-walking the aid. Ukrainian pilots should have been in F-16 training BEFORE Russia invaded. (We do want to sell F-16s, don't we?) It is profoundly stupid that we did not do it immediately after the war started.

---

Our massive GDP does indeed mean that with the signature of a purchase order, factories start building production of ordnance and weapons systems at a rates Russia cannot hope to match. Their economy is smaller than Texas, yet you are trying to make the case that it is the USA which is resource constrained. Far from it. Our limitation is the wisdom of the current POTUS, who has a policy of "however long it takes" instead of "BOHICA, buddy."

Put down the shovel, Sam! You really do not understand the subject material at all. The moment a POTUS signs the purchase order to as much as double our production of arty and missile rounds, Russia will pivot to diplomacy. They know they cannot compete. Their only hope is that the anti-war argument wins out in western Parliaments.

Here's the strategic lesson you are missing:
Nato peacetime replenishment production capacity is sufficient to match Russia military production at full mobilziation. The path to victory here is quite elementary.

---

Their GDP is actually a bit larger than Canada's. But you really don't understand the economics at all. Russia spent years subsidizing their defense industry and building up surge capacity to prepare for this situation. It would take us even longer, given the obstacles in a profit-based system where funding is unpredictable and inconsistent. The necessary industrial base and supply chains just aren't there.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/02/draft-pentagon-strategy-china-00129764

---

LOL not only do I have two degrees in a macro-economic discipline (trade), I can even read simple charts. The Texas economy, per State of Tx website, is $2.4T, ranking 8th on all three lists, well ahead of BOTH Russia and Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Table

Add in the $16T GDP of the EU zone and Russia is facing a 20-1 macroeconomic disadvantage.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you argue that Russia has a industrial base which can outproduce that of Nato/EU? Nato/EU as far higher productivity rates. Nato/EU suffers not from technological limitations that Russia faces. Nato/EU peacetime military production dwarfs Russian war footing output.

All we have to do is sign purchase orders......

Russia is spending ONE-THIRD of its federal budget on the Ukraine War = $109B. They are already all-in. Nothing left to give.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/everything-front-russia-allots-third-2024-spending-defence-2023-10-02/

NATO is spending 10x that PEACETIME.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/everything-front-russia-allots-third-2024-spending-defence-2023-10-02/

We double aid to Ukraine, Russia folds.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Because google search is well known for providing fair and balanced information?

"I found it remarkable that not a single anti-abortion commentary about this very Catholic question showed up until page five of the Google results. So, I tried the same comparative search with socially charged questions, including: Should I help my teen transition their gender? Are unarmed Black men at greater risk for being shot by police? Are white Christians really the greatest threat to American democracy? And, is climate change really going to burn up the planet?

What I found interesting about the first-page results (where an estimated 92% of clicks come from) was that the Google results presented near-unanimous results directing me to a single, monolithic answer. Thus, parents wondering whether they should help their teen transition their gender were gently nudged to allay their concerns. People asking about white Christians and democracy were assured that white nationalists were an even greater threat than imagined. And people inquiring about climate change were warned, with absolutely no equivocation, that "the climate disaster is here" and there is no hope for "the unhabitable Earth."

https://www.deseret.com/2022/10/30/23387827/google-freespoke-search-engines-censorship-conservatives/

So Whiterock, the retired spook, is asking you to use a government affiliated search engine that is going to give you a government approved answer about everything Ukraine. Think better, and understand that a guy like MacGregor who has direct exposure to somewhat modern warfare has a better handle on things than a boomer who chased Bolsheviks in Ladas half a century ago.

---

LOL I know all that about Google, first hand, but my specific reference was generic = quick research. And in this case, facts are facts, buddy. There is an aid package. It has stuff in it. You can search any engine you want to use and you will find the same stuff listed - 155m arty rounds, longer range ATACMS, replenishment of Patriot batteries (plus more batteries), vehicles, etc...... We are shipping in more than enough ammo to stabilize the front lines. $1b worth is already pre-positioned and will be delivered in days. There's also additional Presidential draw-down authority. (if you don't immediately know what that means, it means you don't google enough and should reflect on whether or not you know enough to be commenting on the subject material.)

And this is before we get to the question of the impact of the passage of the aid package will have on NATO allies. Some have been waiting on us to act before stepping up their own aid levels, so our aid will not be the totality of what will be provided over the coming weeks.

Example of the kind of stuff you should be reading:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-preparing-1-bln-weapons-package-ukraine-officials-say-2024-04-23/
But you have to actually try to educate yourself if you're going to catch up to the boomers.

---

Your article confirms what I said. $1 billion for immediate aid, $8 billion in additional PDA, and tens of billions -- by far the bulk of the appropriation -- to replace weapons already sent.

---

LOL, uh...nope. You are (again) missing the details.

$29b...half is direct war-fighting aid, $14b of which is for lethal stuff (arms/ammo), and $15b of which is for combat support (meals, meds, commo, uniforms, training, intel, etc.....). Replenishment monies are about a third. The rest is non-military aid to Ukrainian Govt.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-senate-china-d7b4846de76a1dfe5d2207b7eb6eeead

The "replenishment" number hints at what you missed = Presidential Drawdown Authority. PDA has its own annual statutory cap = $11b. POTUS can, on his own judgment, give up to $11b or military aid wherever he/she sees fit. The replenishment funding in the bill is merely restocking what was given last year under under the 2023 PDA limit That, of course, means that Biden now has another $11b in PDA authority for FY 2024 IN ADDITION to the funding in the aid bill. Some of that will go to Taiwan and/or Israel, but one could reasonably expect the lion's share to go to Ukraine.

The $1b in lethal aid already prepositioned for delivery in hours is under PDA.

The replenishment provided in the bill means that, from a military readiness standpoint, we have enough inventory to provide $11b in aid without affecting our own readiness.

---

$23 billion of the appropriation is to replace weapons that have already been delivered.. Perhaps another $4 billion pays for weapons in the process of being delivered. Only about $10 billion represents weapons yet to be produced and shipped.

Bottom line, most of this aid is already on the battlefield.

---

PDA is an authorization, not a funding source.

---

That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. PDA doesn't cause weapons to magically appear.
LOL Good Grief, Sam!!! PDA does indeed make weapons magically appear. We pull them today out of existing inventory and ship them tomorrow directly to the battlefield. That is precisely the purpose of PDA...emergency capability to respond first and get funding later.

You seem to think all those Abrams, F-16s, etc. are just sitting around waiting to be distributed whenever and wherever.
Indeed they are. We pulled 400 M1 Abrahms off-line with the USMC and sold them to Poland last year. We could have shipped all of them to Ukraine and let Poland purchase new models off the production line. We have THOUSANDS of Abrahms and Bradleys in active service and could spare a few hundred for a few months until we pull a corresponding number of out of the boneyards (where we have THOUSANDS of each in storage). Your disconnect with reality here is orbital.

Kind of like you think our massive GDP number means we can produce anything we want overnight and automatically win the arms race with the flick of a pen.
It most certainly does. And if we sign a big enough purchase order, ordnance manufacturers will add capacity which will be on line in a few months. Lockheed fired up a new production line for F-16s in Nov 2022. You know how that started? With the flick of a pen. They produced 8 last year and will be at a rate of 4 per month (48/yr) by 2025. The quicker you flick the pen, the quicker that kind of production happens.


The reality is that our resources are allocated in certain ways, and diverting them involves a trade-off. It affects readiness long before the number of stocks reaches zero.
Dude. The numbers involved in our aid to Ukraine are a pin-***** on our readiness. Only a handful of missile systems are even in question.

As Mearsheimer and others have pointed out, there's no sign that we have large numbers of the needed stocks available to give to Ukraine. Apparently we have more Bradleys than we know what to do with, so we're handing out a lot of them. Unfortunately that isn't what Ukraine needs right now.
Your argument presumes that we are already at full capacity short of full mobilization. That is comically incorrect. Our suppliers have to make a profit. To do that, they have to tool up for peacetime replenishment programs - replacement of old systems due to shelf-life or technological obsolescence issues. They can 2x, 3x, 4x and more if we commit to purchase enough to justify the investment. All it takes is a purchase order and they will do it. See the F-16 example above. 14 months to full production on one of the more complicated things we make. 155m arty rounds are terribly simple things. Increase in orders of magnitude would take weeks to accomplish. All it takes i the flick of a pen.

By the way, bear in mind that when this package fails to turn the tide -- and it will fail -- you're going to be obliged to belittle it and accuse Biden of "slow-walking" and "trickling out the aid." So you might want to think twice before over-hyping it too much. Just saying.
He has been slow-walking the aid. Ukrainian pilots should have been in F-16 training BEFORE Russia invaded. (We do want to sell F-16s, don't we?) It is profoundly stupid that we did not do it immediately after the war started.

---

Our massive GDP does indeed mean that with the signature of a purchase order, factories start building production of ordnance and weapons systems at a rates Russia cannot hope to match. Their economy is smaller than Texas, yet you are trying to make the case that it is the USA which is resource constrained. Far from it. Our limitation is the wisdom of the current POTUS, who has a policy of "however long it takes" instead of "BOHICA, buddy."

Put down the shovel, Sam! You really do not understand the subject material at all. The moment a POTUS signs the purchase order to as much as double our production of arty and missile rounds, Russia will pivot to diplomacy. They know they cannot compete. Their only hope is that the anti-war argument wins out in western Parliaments.

Here's the strategic lesson you are missing:
Nato peacetime replenishment production capacity is sufficient to match Russia military production at full mobilziation. The path to victory here is quite elementary.

---

Their GDP is actually a bit larger than Canada's. But you really don't understand the economics at all. Russia spent years subsidizing their defense industry and building up surge capacity to prepare for this situation. It would take us even longer, given the obstacles in a profit-based system where funding is unpredictable and inconsistent. The necessary industrial base and supply chains just aren't there.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/02/draft-pentagon-strategy-china-00129764

---

LOL not only do I have two degrees in a macro-economic discipline (trade), I can even read simple charts. The Texas economy, per State of Tx website, is $2.4T, ranking 8th on all three lists, well ahead of BOTH Russia and Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Table

Add in the $16T GDP of the EU zone and Russia is facing a 20-1 macroeconomic disadvantage.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you argue that Russia has a industrial base which can outproduce that of Nato/EU? Nato/EU as far higher productivity rates. Nato/EU suffers not from technological limitations that Russia faces. Nato/EU peacetime military production dwarfs Russian war footing output.

All we have to do is sign purchase orders......

Russia is spending ONE-THIRD of its federal budget on the Ukraine War = $109B. They are already all-in. Nothing left to give.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/everything-front-russia-allots-third-2024-spending-defence-2023-10-02/

NATO is spending 10x that PEACETIME.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/everything-front-russia-allots-third-2024-spending-defence-2023-10-02/

We double aid to Ukraine, Russia folds.

---

Your economic and military expertise has served you well. I don't think there's a poster here who's capable of misunderstanding this war in greater depth than you do. But you do need to call your buddies at the Pentagon and let them in on your plan. They just put out a report on our deep, systemic problems with supply and production, which they say will take a generation to fix. Tell them to take those pens and get to flicking!

Seriously though, I wonder whether you believe half the stuff that you post here ("human wave" assaults, anyone?). We could double our aid to Ukraine and still not produce half of what Russia does. And remember we have a global empire to maintain, plus that war with China that you maniacs are already planning. Speaking of which, the Chinese have yet to commit their aid in a serious way. You are really playing one-dimensional chess if you think they'd just let us roll over the Russians.