The USA found an additional 6 billion for Ukraine

Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) said:

In 1939, 90% of Americans were against joining the war against Germany and I've always wondered "what excuse could they possibly conjure to argue for standing by and doing nothing while this was happening right across their ocean???"

Not saying you're wrong, and I do generally support us helping Ukraine. But WW2 isn't always an applicable example. I heard the same things about Iraq in 2003, complete with the Neville Chamberlain quotes and everything. Hell, back then I was SAYING that stuff.

SV reX said:

In the US, we call that a "surplus".  Isn't this a great country?

A coworker would joking say re: buying things "on sale" with his family:   "We're gonna need to buy a truck to carry all the money we saved"

In reply to AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) :

I found a YouTube channel, 'Perun', that does a *really* good job of analyzing the war in Ukraine, particularly from a macro level and an economic context.

He recently did a video about "Escalation Strategy and Aid in Ukraine" that addresses these concerns/critiques. Because it is a mess and this war could probably have been wrapped up by now if the U.S., NATO, and EU allied powers had just ramped straight up to full support of supplies, aid, and materiel to allow Ukraine to directly challenge Russia.

This hasn't happened for a lot of complex reasons. The reasons include:

• Lots of major powers would like to send aid, but they don't want to be the first or only ones to do so. Getting major nations to all act in unison is tough. Doubly so because different nations are more comfortable sending different types of aid.
• Russia is a nuclear power. There is a line where they could be provoked to do... really horrible things. There's no way of knowing ahead of time what that is. They're also much less likely to feel provoked in their response if opposing powers gradually ramp up their resistance rather than jumping straight from 2 to 8.

The short version is, "Foreign conflicts are complicated."

It's also been commented that your strategy is different depending on if your goal is "for Ukraine to win" versus "for Russia to lose." If your goal is to weaken Russia's international position, prolonging the war bleeds them of more resources than a swift and decisive defeat.

SV reX said:

So, Congress approves a certain amount of money for aid, the Pentagon overvalues their used equipment and sends it, someone decides they want to send more equipment, the Pentagon re-evaluates the value of the previously sent equipment and cuts the value in half, so now the Pentagon can send twice as much equipment without additional Congressional approval?  Am I getting this right?

In the US, we call that a "surplus".  Isn't this a great country?

Of all the forums on the planet that should understand how this works, this board is the one.

All they did was adjust the FMV of what was sent.  Anyone who has done the challenge has done this.  You find a parts car, and sell the stuff you don't want for as much as possible, and then claim the stuff you use is as little as is reasonable.  This is just calculating the FMV of the parts you use on your challenge car to help you out.  But on a scale that's 3x10^6 higher.  

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) said:

In 1939, 90% of Americans were against joining the war against Germany and I've always wondered "what excuse could they possibly conjure to argue for standing by and doing nothing while this was happening right across their ocean???"

Not saying you're wrong, and I do generally support us helping Ukraine. But WW2 isn't always an applicable example. I heard the same things about Iraq in 2003, complete with the Neville Chamberlain quotes and everything. Hell, back then I was SAYING that stuff.

No analogy is perfect.

The Nazi Germany one is much less strained regarding Russia and Putin. Similarities that apply to Russia that didn't apply to Iraq or Saddam:

• Russia is effectively a former empire that collapsed and had states break away and become independent.
• Putin has expressed wanting to rebuild this empire and has made noises about claiming other territories.
• Russia invaded Ukraine once and annexed territory already. Other powers did not resist him then, thinking it was over. Then he launched a larger attach.
• Putin has expressed wanting to dismantle or at least directly challenge the existing international order. Wanting to change all of global politics, not just local boundaries.
• Russia has a much larger military that is capable of being an existential threat to effectively any other sovereign nation.
• We are not launching attacks into internationally recognized Russian territory. We are working to expel Russia from internationally recognized Ukrainian territory.

If this is similar to beefs with Iraq, it is more similar to the first Gulf War rather than the 2003 invasion to depose Saddam Hussein.

alfadriver said:

SV reX said:

So, Congress approves a certain amount of money for aid, the Pentagon overvalues their used equipment and sends it, someone decides they want to send more equipment, the Pentagon re-evaluates the value of the previously sent equipment and cuts the value in half, so now the Pentagon can send twice as much equipment without additional Congressional approval?  Am I getting this right?

In the US, we call that a "surplus".  Isn't this a great country?

Of all the forums on the planet that should understand how this works, this board is the one.

All they did was adjust the FMV of what was sent.  Anyone who has done the challenge has done this.  You find a parts car, and sell the stuff you don't want for as much as possible, and then claim the stuff you use is as little as is reasonable.  This is just calculating the FMV of the parts you use on your challenge car to help you out.  But on a scale that's 3x10^6 higher.  

That's true. Except for the Congressional approval part.  (There is no authority figure that makes decisions over a Challenge competitor's build choices).  
 

Everyone would scream if a car was brought to the Challenge with an established FMV of $2000, then brought back the next year with NO changes and the builder said "Oh wait... we mis-spoke. The FMV was actually $1000".
 

Seems like Congress would use their authority to define the participation more than the dollars.  Like "We are willing to aid these efforts (up to a certain point)". In other words, defining a level of engagement (like "We will help you, but will not deploy our troops", or "We will help you protect a region").

Instead, it's defined as money, and it's not real money. It's unused assets with a made up "FMV".
 

If we want to send money, let them have some cash, and let them choose how to spend it. 
 

The issue to me is less about the money (or the "FMV"), but about the authority Congress does or does not have. If the Congressional decision is to aid with $X, it converts to an actual quantity of assistance and equipment. "Yep- that would be about 50 tanks. We are good with that. That's what we are willing to authorize".  Now it's "Oh, wait a minute... that's 100 tanks".

It feels like an end-run around Congress' decision-making authority.

Just seems odd.

Beer Baron said:

In reply to AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) :

I found a YouTube channel, ...

...If your goal is to weaken Russia's international position, prolonging the war bleeds them of more resources than a swift and decisive defeat.

Youtubers and legacy media present convincing arguments on all sides. Pick your Kool-aid or think your own thoughts. There is no simple answer to a good way forward.  Even 'Good' may be undefineable with the mess that the last decade of diplomacy has made in the region.

And as for the train wreck .gif, it should have been posted immediately following the thread title.

In reply to SV reX :

I get your point, but on the other hand, a lot of what's being sent would never have seen the battle field here in the US.  So it's not a bad thing to actually use the stuff we paid for by someone.   From sitting in some random field or in a huge warehouse to be scrapped (eventually) to just send to be used?  I'm ok with that.

Let alone, the money spent on rebuilding our forces ends up in the hands of our fellow Americans who have to build it.  I know people don't like government spending, but since so much of it is to have stuff made in the US by US workers designed by US engineers from specifications of US Military- a lot of the money is quite circular and ends up back in the economy as people pay to live.  

In reply to alfadriver :

I agree. 
 

Just don't get switching the price tags. 

Hmmm.  Old white guy cooking the books.   Wonder who that could be?

SV reX said:

Seems like Congress would use their authority to define the participation more than the dollars.  Like "We are willing to aid these efforts (up to a certain point)". In other words, defining a level of engagement (like "We will help you, but will not deploy our troops", or "We will help you protect a region").

Why? What does that gain a congressperson?

First off - you assume they understand and care about the nuanced details involved in that decision. Dollar values are simpler.

If you're a congressperson your first priority is to get reelected. So what will make you look best to your constituents?

First, it needs to be a story that's easy to communicate. The shorter and simpler, the better. That's a dollar amount.

But what's the right dollar amount? You want it to be big enough to be impressive so your constituents see you care. As a whole, congress wants to send a message to other nations that, "We're contributing [this much]. You should contribute too!" But you don't want it so big that constituents go, "This is wasteful! What about [my expensive pet project]?!?"

So you pick a medium number and send that to the pentagon.

Then the accountant at the pentagon is REALLY happy you just sent a number instead of specifying really specific numbers of different classifications of tanks, and mortars, and artillery, and... The people who *actually* understand what is being stored and the logistics issues involved will look and figure out what makes the most sense. Then they will massage the numbers to fit the bill laid out in such a way that everyone has plausible deniability.

But isn't the point of this equipment U.S. national defense and promoting U.S. foreign interests abroad?

Yes. Absolutely. Which is *exactly* what they are being used for. We're using equipment that's already paid for to let our second biggest international rival bleed themselves out against. And we're sending clear messages to all our other rivals who are in similar positions. We're also gathering *really* valuable data and intel on what the next generation of warfare will look like.

We get to look over at China and North Korea and be like, "See big old Vlad over there? Wasn't his military impressive? He is now E36 M3ting himself for fear of taking on the equipment that WE DON'T EVEN WANT anymore! Just imagine what it would be like to face off against the stuff we *have* been investing in..."

In reply to Beer Baron :

That's fair. 
 

Still doesn't explain switching the price tags (other than political gain)

Beer Baron said:

But isn't the point of this equipment U.S. national defense and promoting U.S. foreign interests abroad?

Yes. Absolutely. Which is *exactly* what they are being used for. We're using equipment that's already paid for to let our second biggest international rival bleed themselves out against. And we're sending clear messages to all our other rivals who are in similar positions. We're also gathering *really* valuable data and intel on what the next generation of warfare will look like.

We get to look over at China and North Korea and be like, "See big old Vlad over there? Wasn't his military impressive? He is now E36 M3ting himself for fear of taking on the equipment that WE DON'T EVEN WANT anymore! Just imagine what it would be like to face off against the stuff we *have* been investing in..."

I bet if you look back through history you'd only find a few occasions where we used our best stuff to it's ultimate potential. 

The Bomb, U2 spy plane, Stealth Bombers in Just Cause, GPS/SATCOMS, F117, Tomahawk and Cruise Missles in Gulf War, Drones in Arghanistan, Stealth Blackhawk in bin Laden Raid. 

In general, our best stuff is usually in short supply, used only by US forces, and is used for very specific operations. 

The rest of it is just gifted to our allies as needed. 

In reply to SV reX :

"In its accounting, the Pentagon used replacement cost to value the weapons aid, instead of the weaponry's value when it was purchased and depreciated, the senior defense officials said."

IE:

- a tank costs $10 million to replace today. 

- a tank cost $3 million back in 1990, but depreciated to $1 million today. 

If we give an ally 10 tanks considering their replacement value, we're at $100 million. 

If we give an ally 10 tanks considering their depreciated value, we're only at $10 million. 

Replacement value is only a consideration if we need to replace that equipment. If we're building a new version of the tank, and we'd never use the old version, why use replacement value as total amount of aid? 

From a political standpoint, this allows to give a lot more aid for a much lower dollar amount. 

But, that's not without issues either. 

If we base our policy off what we percieve as cheap old equipment, we can give a lot of equipment to Ukraine for a low dollar amount. But what happens when we need to give them better, newer equipment that IS NOT surplus? 

Suddenly you go from:

100 tanks, 1000 missles, 20 drones, 2mil rounds, 1000 shoulder fire missles, etc etc etc a proverbial Costco cart full of equipment for low low price of $6 billion.

Then the admin comes back and says, "we want to send 10 currently operational F16's to Ukraine. ""How much will that cost to replace?" "6bil" - "will those planes end the conflict?" "No" 

"The Department of Defense's change in evaluating the costs of arms sent to Ukraine is a major mistake," U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said. "Its effect would be to underestimate future needs for our European allies. Our priority should be a Ukrainian victory over Putin. Unilaterally altering military aid calculations is an attempt at deception and undermines this goal.""

If you're a Representative with a lot of DoD contracts, you're likely getting some pressure from those manufacturers to value aid at replacement value because it will bookmark that value as a future amount of money that needs to be spent replacing that equipment. 

But it's surplus. It's like the previous example of claiming an old unused car is worth $10k donated for a tax right off, but in reality, it's only worth $500. Then claiming to your wife that you should be able to spend $10k on a new car because that's what thought the old one was worth as a donated item. 

In reply to pheller :

I understand how the math works between depreciated and replacement value. I don't understand switching the price tags, or the implied political ramifications.

1988RedT2 said:

Hmmm.  Old white guy cooking the books.   Wonder who that could be?

If you think it's just one person, or that it's anything new, I have some bad news for you...

I think it has to do with justifying future expenditures. 

If you give something away at replacement value, you can claim that future budgets should consider those costs as an amount needed to spend to replace the aid given.

If you give something away at depreciated value, it may be harder to justify spending 10x the amount for replacement equipment. 

Military equipment manufacturers want to create more surplus because it's a money maker for them. If you anti-military-industrial complex, you want to wind down the spending on old stuff. 

I really don't have a problem with politicians behaving like politicians.  It's what they are supposed to do.

I'm uncomfortable with journalists who give BS a pass, and fail to hold anyone's feet to the fire. 
 

You don't just "find" $6 billion.  It's governmental or political tomfoolery (maybe for good reason, maybe not).  
 

The journalists' jobs are to bring these things to the public forum so we can have open conversations about them.  Not to treat us like mushrooms, keeping us in the dark and feeding us BS of whatever flavor they choose according to their own likes and dislikes.

Its very possible this is a valuable strategic move. "Oh dear... the aid we offered isn't really enough if we want to protect our interests.  We need to double it."  OK. Sounds good.  Let's discuss.   "Oh look!  We found $6 billion" sounds like we are all just plain stupid. 

Another way:

If I claim I gave away a $800 round, then when I need to replace that round, I can give my friends at the military munitions company $800 for a round that costs them $100 to make. $700 profit. 

If I claim I gave away a $200 round (produced years ago and depreciated), it's going to be harder to justify at budget hearings that we should spend $800 to replace that round. It opens up the conversation to reevaluate the contract with my friends at the munitions company. Maybe it is decided that we don't want to spend $800 a round anymore, and more like $200. $100 profit. 

In reply to pheller :

I agree.  Those are reasonable explanations of the difference between replacement and depreciated. 
 

But they don't explain switching the price tags. 

Biden admin got original aid packages based on some Republicans wanting the replacement value in determining value of that aid. 

Biden admin asked the Pentagon to instead calucate the aid based on the depreciated value of the equipment. 

Biden admins broadcasts that "hey, turns out Ukraine is getting a bargain on all our surplus!" 

Republicans are barking back "it's surplus today, but it might not be tomorrow, it should be valued at replacement cost!" 

Again, I think much of this is an attempt to justify future spending on DoD contracts to replace stuff we may or may not need. 

SV reX said:

In reply to Beer Baron :

Still doesn't explain switching the price tags (other than political gain)

Sure it does. It's not political gain. It's two different government departments who want to count the dollars differently for different purposes.

Congress but especially POTUS want to be able to do accounting with the maximal value assigned to every item. Then when we talk to our military allies they can say, "We sent over a MASSIVE value of equipment! You guys should chip in, too." Our allies don't mind this, because it let's Germany say, "Hey, we're not antagonizing Russia. We're only sending over 1/10 of what the Americans are."

The Pentagon wants to see the Russians get smacked down. They are given a dollar amount. They want to send as much aid as possible that doesn't inhibit their ability to perform their jobs. They want the lowest dollar value on tanks they're just warehousing so they can send over as many as possible.

In reply to pheller :

Is that your opinion, or what is actually happening?  I don't see that at all in the original article link. 

In reply to Beer Baron :

Fair enough. 
 

Then it's not money "found".  It's an intentional choice to shift priorities. 
 

Which is fine.