Ukraine

[Telecaster]

Yes that. If you debate numbers, keep in mind that the stuff the US send (at the beginning) was almost only equipment that would have been trashed by the US army in the near future anyway, so youi could say it wasn't an expense at all,

That's not true.  The US sent thousands of Javelin and Stinger missiles right out of the gate, before the war even.   

[LennStar]

Yes that. If you debate numbers, keep in mind that the stuff the US send (at the beginning) was almost only equipment that would have been trashed by the US army in the near future anyway, so youi could say it wasn't an expense at all,

That's not true.  The US sent thousands of Javelin and Stinger missiles right out of the gate, before the war even.

Yes, and I read those were ending their shelf life.
Quick google: https://www.reuters.com/world/shrinking-us-stinger-missile-supply-faces-re-stocking-challenges-2022-04-26/

"Right before Ukraine hit, we were going to divest ourselves of Stingers," a congressional source said.

The Pentagon has not ordered new Stingers for about 18 years

Stingers that were to become obsolete in 2023

If you want to put the US in a bad light you could also say that flying them to Ukraine was cheaper than to disposing of them safely at home. ;)

[pecunia]

Yes that. If you debate numbers, keep in mind that the stuff the US send (at the beginning) was almost only equipment that would have been trashed by the US army in the near future anyway, so youi could say it wasn't an expense at all,

That's not true.  The US sent thousands of Javelin and Stinger missiles right out of the gate, before the war even.

Yes, and I read those were ending their shelf life.
Quick google: https://www.reuters.com/world/shrinking-us-stinger-missile-supply-faces-re-stocking-challenges-2022-04-26/

"Right before Ukraine hit, we were going to divest ourselves of Stingers," a congressional source said.

The Pentagon has not ordered new Stingers for about 18 years

Stingers that were to become obsolete in 2023

If you want to put the US in a bad light you could also say that flying them to Ukraine was cheaper than to disposing of them safely at home. ;)

I think they worked.  I think the recipient was happy to receive them.

[LennStar]

That's not something an accountant is interested in. :D

Why are you guys so "steamy" when I point out that normally these things would have been thrown away at high costs, but you found a better use for them? It feels like I triggered some patriotism trigger??

[Telecaster]

Yes that. If you debate numbers, keep in mind that the stuff the US send (at the beginning) was almost only equipment that would have been trashed by the US army in the near future anyway, so youi could say it wasn't an expense at all,

That's not true.  The US sent thousands of Javelin and Stinger missiles right out of the gate, before the war even.

Yes, and I read those were ending their shelf life.
Quick google: https://www.reuters.com/world/shrinking-us-stinger-missile-supply-faces-re-stocking-challenges-2022-04-26/

"Right before Ukraine hit, we were going to divest ourselves of Stingers," a congressional source said.

The Pentagon has not ordered new Stingers for about 18 years

Stingers that were to become obsolete in 2023

If you want to put the US in a bad light you could also say that flying them to Ukraine was cheaper than to disposing of them safely at home. ;)

Nice selective editing.   Here is the actual quote:

For example, the Army is in the middle of a "service life extension plan" for some of its Stingers that were to become obsolete in 2023 and is extending what the military calls their "useful life" until 2030.

No where does it say they were about to be disposed of.   

[LennStar]

No where does it say they were about to be disposed of.

It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o

But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?

[Tyson]

No where does it say they were about to be disposed of.

It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o

But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?

Please don't paint all Americans as gun toting fanatics.  As you can see here, the large majority of us favor tougher gun laws:



A big part of the problem is that gun ownership is part of the US Constitution, and any real effort at gun control will have to overcome that.  The issue is that to overturn any part of the Constitution requires a 2/3rd majority from both the Congress and the Senate, and we're not even close to getting those super-majorities. 

[GuitarStv]

A big part of the problem is that gun ownership is part of the US Constitution, and any real effort at gun control will have to overcome that.

The constitution says that people can own guns to be part of a militia.  It is the recent (in our lifetime) conservative led Supreme Court total reinterpretations of this aspect of the constitution that you'll need to overcome.

[Telecaster]

It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o

But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?

Actually, it doesn't have the wording that you want.  Namely, something that supports your claim the US wanted to dispose of them.   Your article clearly says they are refurbishing them, not disposing of them.    FWIW, they started manufacturing Stingers again to replace the ones the to Ukraine.   You typically don't buy more of something you are trying to get rid of. 

[pecunia]

The published dead of Russian soldiers is 132,160 as of today.  The wounded is 396,480.  When this war is finally over, I wonder what kind of PTSD these Russians will have after freezing in a trench with killing shells landing all around.  It doesn't sound healthy.  Numbers are from the armed forces of Ukraine. You may not believe these numbers.  Your choice.

That number is about the same as the population of Midland, Texas.  There would be quite a stir in this country if that number of people disappeared.

[simonsez]

Lol @Tyson for that poll question, what state are we talking about?  If I'm in X state, wow, what a PITA, it should be relaxed!  If I'm in Y state, wow, I didn't need to show ANYTHING, it should be stronger!  And then you have the places where it seems reasonable which I would define as some sensible hoops to jump through that aren't too burdensome or costly and aren't just an outright revenue grab by the state.  Or is that poll just a vague virtue signal of a person's politics with respect to this one issue?  Hard for me to answer that question with anything other than "it depends where you live" but that's not a choice.

It's not clear what gun-toting fanatics in the US have to do with Ukraine.  I, for one, own a gun and don't really think we have business being in Ukraine directly or indirectly* but that's JMO and a very uneducated one at that, so I like to read the various perspectives to gain more insight.

* Basically the US was the world police in the 20th Century and I don't think that was the best long-term solution (arguably the US created more enemies for itself in the long term and we have the constant military-industrial complex presence coloring our media and legislation not to mention needing more places to fund wars every so often).  It worked decently in the short-term and for the post-WW2 situation at the time it made sense.  But now we have some more decades under our belt and everything is so twisted that I like simplicity.  A nuclear war is less likely if the US is not involved with a non-NATO country, thus let's mind our own business.  Short-term it sucks, long-term we avoid the Dr Stangelove ending.  And honestly, if the US was never involved with Ukraine, I'm not convinced by this thread or the glimpses I've read elsewhere that the death count of Ukrainians and Russians would be higher (and if our goal is not to minimize the loss of human life, WTF are we doing meddling in post-Soviet politics via adding billions' worth of human-killing tanks, missiles, etc.?!).  It feels icky politically and business-motivated but I'm open to the possibility of not having all the facts.

[Michael in ABQ]

No where does it say they were about to be disposed of.

It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o

But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?

Typically, they're used for training. Modern missiles are far too expensive for every Soldier to get a chance to train with them. Several years ago we had some AT4s (shoulder launched unguided rocket) that were expiring, and my company got to pick a couple of Soldiers (out of 100+) to go fire them. It's a morale booster and provides better training value than the simulator that fires a modified tracer 9mm pistol round (at a cost of a few dollars vs. thousands of dollars).

When we had Soldiers go to a 2-week class to get certified on shooting Javelin missiles only the top one or two in the class (of 20-30 Soldiers) got a chance to fire a live missile. The US military annually spends hundreds of millions, if not billions, on training ammunition. However, that's still not nearly enough to be firing Stingers or Javelins missiles on a regular basis. It's mostly for rifle and machine gun ammunition, artillery and mortar shells, tank rounds, etc. All of those have cheaper training rounds that don't contain explosives or have a reduced amount so they're less expensive. That doesn't really work with a guided missile since the explosive would be a tiny part of the final cost.

[Tyson]

Lol @Tyson for that poll question, what state are we talking about?  If I'm in X state, wow, what a PITA, it should be relaxed!  If I'm in Y state, wow, I didn't need to show ANYTHING, it should be stronger!  And then you have the places where it seems reasonable which I would define as some sensible hoops to jump through that aren't too burdensome or costly and aren't just an outright revenue grab by the state.  Or is that poll just a vague virtue signal of a person's politics with respect to this one issue?  Hard for me to answer that question with anything other than "it depends where you live" but that's not a choice.

It's not clear what gun-toting fanatics in the US have to do with Ukraine.  I, for one, own a gun and don't really think we have business being in Ukraine directly or indirectly* but that's JMO and a very uneducated one at that, so I like to read the various perspectives to gain more insight.

* Basically the US was the world police in the 20th Century and I don't think that was the best long-term solution (arguably the US created more enemies for itself in the long term and we have the constant military-industrial complex presence coloring our media and legislation not to mention needing more places to fund wars every so often).  It worked decently in the short-term and for the post-WW2 situation at the time it made sense.  But now we have some more decades under our belt and everything is so twisted that I like simplicity.  A nuclear war is less likely if the US is not involved with a non-NATO country, thus let's mind our own business.  Short-term it sucks, long-term we avoid the Dr Stangelove ending.  And honestly, if the US was never involved with Ukraine, I'm not convinced by this thread or the glimpses I've read elsewhere that the death count of Ukrainians and Russians would be higher (and if our goal is not to minimize the loss of human life, WTF are we doing meddling in post-Soviet politics via adding billions' worth of human-killing tanks, missiles, etc.?!).  It feels icky politically and business-motivated but I'm open to the possibility of not having all the facts.

I was just replying to LennStar's quote "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket" which is a pretty funny satire of the NRA's talking point.  I do think our gun laws are too lax, and the poll shows that most Americans do too.  Is there state to state variation?  Of course.  I was born in Texas and lived there for quite a while before moving to CO.  I don't think there's a more pro-gun state than TX.  CO is more moderate, and other states like CA or OR are not pro-gun at all.

State to state variation doesn't change the fact that the large majority of Americans want tougher gun laws.  But there are structural issues at play that prevent a simple majority from being able to make the desired change. 

Anyway, back to Ukraine.  Russia is slowly dying and one way that empires have traditionally staved off their demise is to simply take over other countries.  That's what we are seeing here.  The problem is that this only temporarily stops the bleeding and so sooner or later the empire is forced to take over more countries to prevent a death spiral.  IMO, the US and Europe stepping in to stop this is nipping Russian expansion in the bud.

[simonsez]

Thanks @Tyson ! Admittedly, that prior context flew past me. 

[zolotiyeruki]

The published dead of Russian soldiers is 132,160 as of today.  The wounded is 396,480.  When this war is finally over, I wonder what kind of PTSD these Russians will have after freezing in a trench with killing shells landing all around.  It doesn't sound healthy.  Numbers are from the armed forces of Ukraine. You may not believe these numbers.  Your choice.

That number is about the same as the population of Midland, Texas.  There would be quite a stir in this country if that number of people disappeared.

FWIW, the number of wounded assumes a 3:1 wounded:killed ratio, which is what modernized western militaries with their logistics, field medicine, and combat tactics see. Russia, being far inferior in all these areas, is likely to see far fewer of their wounded survive long enough to be recovered and medivac'ed and treated.

[TomTX]

The published dead of Russian soldiers is 132,160 as of today.  The wounded is 396,480.  When this war is finally over, I wonder what kind of PTSD these Russians will have after freezing in a trench with killing shells landing all around.  It doesn't sound healthy.  Numbers are from the armed forces of Ukraine. You may not believe these numbers.  Your choice.

That number is about the same as the population of Midland, Texas.  There would be quite a stir in this country if that number of people disappeared.

FWIW, the number of wounded assumes a 3:1 wounded:killed ratio, which is what modernized western militaries with their logistics, field medicine, and combat tactics see. Russia, being far inferior in all these areas, is likely to see far fewer of their wounded survive long enough to be recovered and medivac'ed and treated.

Yeah, based on the really shitty, inadequate kits for Russian medics and numerous reports/videos/etc of abandoning or outright killing wounded - it's at best a 1:1 ratio for the Russians in this war.

[LennStar]

It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o

But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?

Actually, it doesn't have the wording that you want.  Namely, something that supports your claim the US wanted to dispose of them.   Your article clearly says they are refurbishing them, not disposing of them.    FWIW, they started manufacturing Stingers again to replace the ones the to Ukraine.   You typically don't buy more of something you are trying to get rid of.

The article says a few (if I remember correctly) will be refurbished, so that means the majority will no longer be counted as usable. So again my question, what happens with them if not being disposed?

Please don't paint all Americans as gun toting fanatics.

I didn't do. I merely referred in an satirical way to normal American behavior, as someone above clearly understood.

Typically, they're used for training. Modern missiles are far too expensive for every Soldier to get a chance to train with them. Several years ago we had some AT4s (shoulder launched unguided rocket) that were expiring, and my company got to pick a couple of Soldiers (out of 100+) to go fire them.

Okay, that makes sense, you can probably upgrade their software to look like newer stuff. And as long as the missile part works it's okay for training.

I was just thinking about the Strela's (East Germany army anti-tank missiles) - we gave quite a number to the Ukrainians, but they said 99% of them no longer worked after 30 years probably untouched in storage. Judging by the refurbishing giving not even 10 years of life time, I would assume even for training it would be too much hassle with the high rates of not working to use them in training. 

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Yes that. If you debate numbers, keep in mind that the stuff the US send (at the beginning) was almost only equipment that would have been trashed by the US army in the near future anyway, so youi could say it wasn't an expense at all,

That's not true.  The US sent thousands of Javelin and Stinger missiles right out of the gate, before the war even.

Yes, and I read those were ending their shelf life.
Quick google: https://www.reuters.com/world/shrinking-us-stinger-missile-supply-faces-re-stocking-challenges-2022-04-26/

"Right before Ukraine hit, we were going to divest ourselves of Stingers," a congressional source said.

The Pentagon has not ordered new Stingers for about 18 years

Stingers that were to become obsolete in 2023

If you want to put the US in a bad light you could also say that flying them to Ukraine was cheaper than to disposing of them safely at home. ;)

I think they worked.  I think the recipient was happy to receive them.

Russia had a blast with them, too.  Or maybe "detonation", to spoil the pun.

[Telecaster]

The article says a few (if I remember correctly) will be refurbished, so that means the majority will no longer be counted as usable. So again my question, what happens with them if not being disposed?

According to the article you posted, the Stingers were scheduled to be refurbished, not disposed of.   So, again the answer to your question is that if they aren't disposed of, they are refurbished. 

[zolotiyeruki]

The article says a few (if I remember correctly) will be refurbished, so that means the majority will no longer be counted as usable. So again my question, what happens with them if not being disposed?

According to the article you posted, the Stingers were scheduled to be refurbished, not disposed of.   So, again the answer to your question is that if they aren't disposed of, they are refurbished.

I wonder what the cost difference is between refurbishing a Stinger and manufacturing a new one.

[Telecaster]

I'm sure it is substantially cheaper.  Stinger production ended about 18 years ago, and like many systems they have been more or less continuously upgraded over time.   Production was started again to replace stocks consumed in Ukraine. 

[nereo]

The article says a few (if I remember correctly) will be refurbished, so that means the majority will no longer be counted as usable. So again my question, what happens with them if not being disposed?

According to the article you posted, the Stingers were scheduled to be refurbished, not disposed of.   So, again the answer to your question is that if they aren't disposed of, they are refurbished.

I wonder what the cost difference is between refurbishing a Stinger and manufacturing a new one.

I'm not military, but I do deal a lot with inventory and supply chains.  It seems like some posters are doing a lot of mental gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that weapons supplied to Ukraine by the US somehow "didn't cost the US anything" or "were going to be thrown in the trash".  On its face both claims seem dubious.

We have inventories precisely so that we have items when we need them, and don't have to spend literally years ramping up production -it's as simple as that. It's not some mistake that we maintain armories filled with everything from Javelin missiles to Humvees, it's by design. We also have relief valves built in to control the supply.  A major one - training - was pointed out by @Michael in ABQ.  We want our troops to get live-fire training but we don't to manufacture new ammo just to have some junior enlistee shoot it into the sand halfway to the target. But there's another head-smackingly obvious reason we stockpile munitions, and that is to supply nations like Ukraine (or - more accurately - countries we think are in our best interest to arm.  Sometimes we provide weapons as "aid" and in Ukraine at least it seems to have had a phenomenal ROI so far. In many other cases we sell these 'outdated' and 'near end of service' caches to other countries, earning quite a bit of money in the process .  And of course we always keep a crap-ton at hand just in case they are needed for domestic defense.  When these missiles were being produced some 30 years ago we didn't have a clue what they would ultimately be used for, but the brass was quite certain that they could be used for something, at some point, somewhere, and they were right.

And of course there's the whole "industrial-military complex" - making and sending out munitions is an enormous jobs program here in the US, with >$150B spent annually for 'private' companies to build bombs and bombers, employing a civilian workforce of almost 1MM people.

Authors note:  I'm in no way endorsing the US's model of supplying half the military weapons in the world, but merely pointing out the flaws in saying these misses were headed to the landfill if only Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine.

[Michael in ABQ]

When I was deployed to Africa my main mission was training and equipping the local military. We sent dozens of brand-new HMMWVs and machine guns plus hundreds of rifles and millions of dollars of other equipment and spare parts. It was at zero cost to the local government but built goodwill towards the US and is part of the global competition against China and Russia who are actively trying to do the same thing - albeit less effectively. It also provides a foot in the door if they decide they want to equip more of their forces - at which point they have to pay market price for new equipment or ongoing service. That money would go to defense contractors - not the US government directly but would generate economic activity in the US that would ultimately lead to more tax revenue.

Some of it was clearly old stock (i.e. load-bearing equipment or rucksacks from 1-2 generations ago - but still in new condition) but the HMMWVs and machine guns were straight from the factory. The senior officers were quite impressed as they expected to get refurbished vehicles. Ironically, we were driving HMMWVs that were 15-years old and had constant maintenance issues to escort a shipment of brand-new vehicles.

[LennStar]

The article says a few (if I remember correctly) will be refurbished, so that means the majority will no longer be counted as usable. So again my question, what happens with them if not being disposed?

According to the article you posted, the Stingers were scheduled to be refurbished, not disposed of.   So, again the answer to your question is that if they aren't disposed of, they are refurbished.

Just for you I went into the article again. It clearly states:
"For example, the Army is in the middle of a "service life extension plan" for some of its Stingers"
Since English is not my first language I might err, but I am quite sure "some" is less than half, quite a bit less to be precise.
So the answer is that most of them were NOT refurbished, but at the end of their life time. Which for me means no longer used/useable. Which means disposed off sooner or later. Again, if I am wrong with that, tell me what else happens to them.
If, as posters above said, it means they are scheduled to be given away, that is an answer. One I didn't expect and find a... curious way of disposing military waste, but it is different from destroying, so it counts.


nereo:

I'm not military, but I do deal a lot with inventory and supply chains.  It seems like some posters are doing a lot of mental gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that weapons supplied to Ukraine by the US somehow "didn't cost the US anything" or "were going to be thrown in the trash". 

The post I wrote was to point out that cost on paper is oftne not the real costs and that there are a lot of costs not counted in the official "help for Ukraine" numbers.
In this case I merely pointed out that from an accountants view explosives that are no longer intended to be used and at the end of their life span are worth nothing in the balance (or for that matter could even be a liability, like a poisened strip of land), and as such I find it uncorrect to use their buying price for calculations.

[FIPurpose]

No where does it say they were about to be disposed of.

It was the first result in the search, sorry that it does not have the exact wording you want! O.o

But tell me, what else happens with missiles that the military no longer wants, if not disposed/destroyed? Are they given to children to play? Or is it "Only a good guy with a stinger can stop a bad guy who got a gun at the supermarket"?

Please don't paint all Americans as gun toting fanatics.  As you can see here, the large majority of us favor tougher gun laws:

(img)

A big part of the problem is that gun ownership is part of the US Constitution, and any real effort at gun control will have to overcome that.  The issue is that to overturn any part of the Constitution requires a 2/3rd majority from both the Congress and the Senate, and we're not even close to getting those super-majorities.

The 2/3 majority of congress is the easier part. It's the 3/4 of states required to ratify that basically makes the process impossible.

[nereo]

nereo:

I'm not military, but I do deal a lot with inventory and supply chains.  It seems like some posters are doing a lot of mental gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that weapons supplied to Ukraine by the US somehow "didn't cost the US anything" or "were going to be thrown in the trash". 

The post I wrote was to point out that cost on paper is oftne not the real costs and that there are a lot of costs not counted in the official "help for Ukraine" numbers.
In this case I merely pointed out that from an accountants view explosives that are no longer intended to be used and at the end of their life span are worth nothing in the balance (or for that matter could even be a liability, like a poisened strip of land), and as such I find it uncorrect to use their buying price for calculations.

Why bother with all this mental contortion?  what point are you trying to make here?  You keep trying to make this unfounded point that these munitions are "no longer intended to be used" when clearly that's not the case. I just don't understand why you are getting stuck on this.

[PeteD01]

nereo:

I'm not military, but I do deal a lot with inventory and supply chains.  It seems like some posters are doing a lot of mental gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that weapons supplied to Ukraine by the US somehow "didn't cost the US anything" or "were going to be thrown in the trash". 

The post I wrote was to point out that cost on paper is oftne not the real costs and that there are a lot of costs not counted in the official "help for Ukraine" numbers.
In this case I merely pointed out that from an accountants view explosives that are no longer intended to be used and at the end of their life span are worth nothing in the balance (or for that matter could even be a liability, like a poisened strip of land), and as such I find it uncorrect to use their buying price for calculations.

Why bother with all this mental contortion?  what point are you trying to make here?  You keep trying to make this unfounded point that these munitions are "no longer intended to be used" when clearly that's not the case. I just don't understand why you are getting stuck on this.

I do not know if this actually applies to the Stingers but it is very clear that a lot of the material support for Ukraine is comng from stocks that are considered obsolete in a western military context but are extremely valuable for Ukraine.
It is also true that the $$ numbers are inflated because they are using book values that are not realistic because they could neither be realized in the market nor by own use as they are obsolete in that context.
For Ukraine, though, the equipment is indeed worth as much if not more as stated and they would gladly pay for it if need be and if they were able to.
So it is not a complete deception but it is pretty clear that the material support Ukraine is receiving is much lower in cost for the donors while being at least as valuable to Ukraine as the $$ value stated.
The confusion lies in good part in the issue itself and has a lot to do with the asymmetry of western and Russian military capabilities.

[pecunia]

From Past entry by nereo:

We have inventories precisely so that we have items when we need them, and don't have to spend literally years ramping up production -it's as simple as that. It's not some mistake that we maintain armories filled with everything from Javelin missiles to Humvees, it's by design. We also have relief valves built in to control the supply.  A major one - training - was pointed out by @Michael in ABQ.  We want our troops to get live-fire training but we don't to manufacture new ammo just to have some junior enlistee shoot it into the sand halfway to the target. But there's another head-smackingly obvious reason we stockpile munitions, and that is to supply nations like Ukraine (or - more accurately - countries we think are in our best interest to arm.  Sometimes we provide weapons as "aid" and in Ukraine at least it seems to have had a phenomenal ROI so far. In many other cases we sell these 'outdated' and 'near end of service' caches to other countries, earning quite a bit of money in the process .  And of course we always keep a crap-ton at hand just in case they are needed for domestic defense.  When these missiles were being produced some 30 years ago we didn't have a clue what they would ultimately be used for, but the brass was quite certain that they could be used for something, at some point, somewhere, and they were right.

Many years ago I had an economics class.  I remember being taught that money could go into "guns or butter."  I remembered that there was no real return from the investment in guns.  The Ukraine war now makes me doubt that assertion.  Perhaps all defense spending is not just a necessary evil where the money is pissed away.  I can envision Ukraine being a tremendous investment opportunity for the world after this war, but only if the invaders are sent back home.  It will be a win win for the investors and the Ukrainians. 

I'm not a money guy.  I hate bean-counters so this money spent on Ukraune can be seen as a different kind of investment, a moral investment.  The payback will continue to be there for generations, but only if the invaders are sent back home.

Right now it looks like glorious leader has issued an edict to take Donbas by March. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-accuses-vladimir-putin-of-ordering-a-complete-takeover-of-donbas-by-march

The death toll mounts every day.  Today the internet tells me it's 133,190 dead Russian soldiers.  They seem to have losses of about 700 per day now.  Putin reminds me of a CEO where "It's my way or the highway."  So the Russians are in a surge where "warm bodies" are literally thrown at the problem.

[nereo]

Many years ago I had an economics class.  I remember being taught that money could go into "guns or butter."  I remembered that there was no real return from the investment in guns.  The Ukraine war now makes me doubt that assertion.  Perhaps all defense spending is not just a necessary evil where the money is pissed away.  I can envision Ukraine being a tremendous investment opportunity for the world after this war, but only if the invaders are sent back home.  It will be a win win for the investors and the Ukrainians. 

I'm not a money guy.  I hate bean-counters so this money spent on Ukraune can be seen as a different kind of investment, a moral investment.  The payback will continue to be there for generations, but only if the invaders are sent back home.

Right now it looks like glorious leader has issued an edict to take Donbas by March. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-accuses-vladimir-putin-of-ordering-a-complete-takeover-of-donbas-by-march

The death toll mounts every day.  Today the internet tells me it's 133,190 dead Russian soldiers.  They seem to have losses of about 700 per day now.  Putin reminds me of a CEO where "It's my way or the highway."  So the Russians are in a surge where "warm bodies" are literally thrown at the problem.

I see two ways of looking at whether our contributions are "worth it".  The first is pretty much what you summed up - and that certainly is how the Ukrainians are looking at it - if they are unsuccessful at permanently repelling Russia then all the support is for naught.  But from the EU, Nato and US standpoint, this conflict appears to have already substantially reduced Russia's military offensive capabilities, perhaps for many years. Finland and Sweden are now joining NATO. Russia has lost several hundred thousand of its most productive citizens through a combination of combat injuries, deaths and emigration.The amount of military equipment they've lost is staggering. Global sanctions have started to bite, and are notoriously 'sticky' to remove.  The next decade does not appear nearly as hopeful now for Russia as it did in January 2022.   Even if Ukraine falls tomorrow I can't imagine the costs will have been worth it, but Putin is too deep to back out now.

[Michael in ABQ]

Many years ago I had an economics class.  I remember being taught that money could go into "guns or butter."  I remembered that there was no real return from the investment in guns.  The Ukraine war now makes me doubt that assertion.  Perhaps all defense spending is not just a necessary evil where the money is pissed away.  I can envision Ukraine being a tremendous investment opportunity for the world after this war, but only if the invaders are sent back home.  It will be a win win for the investors and the Ukrainians. 

I'm not a money guy.  I hate bean-counters so this money spent on Ukraune can be seen as a different kind of investment, a moral investment.  The payback will continue to be there for generations, but only if the invaders are sent back home.

The return on that investment is in general global stability. I.e we don't have a problem with pirates in the modern era (with very limited local exceptions) because the US Navy ensures freedom of navigation around the world. There certainly aren't privateers operating to "legally" capture ships from other countries like their used to be hundreds of years ago. I have no idea what it would cost to ship a container halfway around the world if piracy was at the levels it was in the 1700s and 1800s, but it would certainly be higher than it is today.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a pretty blatant violation of international norms - just as when Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq. It's basically armed robbery on a larger scale. In that case the US intervened directly to restore the borders of a sovereign nation - in the case of Ukraine we're being more indirect. But allowing countries to simply conquer their neighbors is bad for everyone and the threat of US intervention has probably stopped a lot of dictators from doing so. Of course, we'll never know for sure - but the return on guns wasn't zero.

[LennStar]

Why bother with all this mental contortion?  what point are you trying to make here?  You keep trying to make this unfounded point that these munitions are "no longer intended to be used" when clearly that's not the case. I just don't understand why you are getting stuck on this.

I am getting stuck why you can't take it as the half-funny besides it is.

In my book, something that is sorted out is no longer intended to be used. I don't see why this is an unfounded point even if it might be untrue in this context. Maybe it's standard procedure in the US army to throw away stuff by giving it to other militaries. I don't know. But in a business it would still not count as "you have given away $". And that is why I said you can't really take the buying price if you want to say how much money was donated. That's all!
And all I will say to this.

The death toll mounts every day.  Today the internet tells me it's 133,190 dead Russian soldiers.  They seem to have losses of about 700 per day now.  Putin reminds me of a CEO where "It's my way or the highway."  So the Russians are in a surge where "warm bodies" are literally thrown at the problem.

Yes, but a lot of them are convicts. If they get killed, it saves money for the prisons. win-win

[Michael in ABQ]

In my book, something that is sorted out is no longer intended to be used. I don't see why this is an unfounded point even if it might be untrue in this context. Maybe it's standard procedure in the US army to throw away stuff by giving it to other militaries. I don't know. But in a business it would still not count as "you have given away $". And that is why I said you can't really take the buying price if you want to say how much money was donated. That's all!

I can donate inventory and get a tax deduction for the original cost - even if it's something that I can no longer sell because it's not popular, etc. Book value is the only real value available for most weapons/defense materiel as there's not exactly a free market for Stinger Missiles and HIMARS rocket launchers to determine market value. Even when arms are sold to a foreign government the pricing includes things like training and support and may be discounted for various reasons or offset in some other way.

The US Army places the book value of an M4 Rifle at about $800 - which is pretty close to what a civilian version costs that is identical except for the little bit that makes it fully automatic instead of semi-automatic (which from a materials/labor perspective probably costs the exact same). But when you get to something like a 60mm mortar where there is no civilian equivalent the price goes up to about $60,000 for what is essentially a very strong metal tube about 1 meter long plus various accessories. Just the Command Launch Unit for a javelin missile is $100,000 (handheld device with night/long-distance optics that aims and launches the missile and is reused). I'm not sure what the book value is for a tank - I've never been signed for one. But the equipment for my 131-man Rifle Company was about $4 million (rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, night vision, thermal sights, etc. plus a couple of trucks). That doesn't even include the thousands of dollars per person for uniforms, body armor, load-bearing equipment, cold weather clothing, etc.

[pecunia]

Yes, but a lot of them are convicts. If they get killed, it saves money for the prisons. win-win

I realize the bean-counters run the world, but I think even convict's lives need to be considered more than in monetary terms.  Russians may look at their lives that way, but I certainly don't.  Too much quibbling about the ledger values of the munitions and perhaps not enough humanitarian sentiment.

[Tyson]

Yes, but a lot of them are convicts. If they get killed, it saves money for the prisons. win-win

I realize the bean-counters run the world, but I think even convict's lives need to be considered more than in monetary terms.  Russians may look at their lives that way, but I certainly don't.  Too much quibbling about the ledger values of the munitions and perhaps not enough humanitarian sentiment.

Russia, from what I understand, doesn't have a culture that values individuals the way the US (and the West) does.  The glory of the country is more important than any individual.  So they would not think of loss of life for a soldier to be a tragedy.  Rather, the soldier died in service to their country, and there can be no greater honor.  So I'm not sure that Russia will stop the war just because a bunch of people die. 

I think that it's going to be a grueling fight where Ukraine will have to force out the invaders, block by block, city by city.  I don't think it will be an easy victory.  But I do think Ukraine will win.

[TomTX]

I'm not military, but I do deal a lot with inventory and supply chains.  It seems like some posters are doing a lot of mental gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that weapons supplied to Ukraine by the US somehow "didn't cost the US anything" or "were going to be thrown in the trash".  On its face both claims seem dubious.

The latest Perun video is quite relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj9HD8MdAFs

TL,DW: Neither the "we're sending trash" nor the headline numbers for aid are at all accurate.

[Travis]

Regarding the Stinger back and forth earlier, the SLEP is to replace the CPU that is so old it can't be reprogrammed anymore. Doing a SLEP on "some" could be due to lack of parts or simply not having the budget or need to do them all at once (the contract was awarded pre-war).  The Stingers that have been made in the last few years for foreign buyers have been using hard-to-get components designed in the late 1970s. Raytheon had to go back to the drawing board last summer and redesign the heat-seeking part of the warhead with modern parts in order to restart full production to replace the couple thousand that we've sent to Ukraine. It'll take until 2025 to increase production to just 60 per month which is a 50% increase over today's rate.



Zelensky went to the UK yesterday and Paris today. The next Ramstein meeting is Tuesday where they're supposed to talk aircraft.

[simonsez]

Honest theoretical question: If it turns out that the US did blow up the pipelines in Sep 2022, would the US receive sanctions and how would that square with politics in general for NATO and the overall Ukraine-Russia situation?  Clearly the environmental impact (usually a left-leaning value) was ignored here regardless of who did the deed.

Sy Hersh (Pulitzer prize winning journo, now in his 80s, seems to have controversy in his history but what whistle-blowing journo with decades of experience doesn't?) seems to have quite the wild story involving Navy divers but only single-sourced and anonymous.  As a consequence no mainstream outlet will publish the story and it remains a giant ? as to who is responsible.  You do have some flimsy economic motivation that Biden and some others even said regarding if the pipeline did not exist or was damaged that it would be "good" but that's pretty speculative.  It would be bizarre if he came up with all these specific details (names who was complicit and the actual secret codename of the project) for it to be false but then again - literally anything could be possible here and I feel like we need additional proof.  I think it's pretty damn important for the overall Ukrainian situation.  It's one thing to indirectly or directly support Ukraine with $/weapons to fight within the rules of war but it's quite another (again, IF THIS IS TRUE) to mess with Russian non-military infrastructure in a HUGE way.  Plus, weird things happen when you look deeply into American political back alley dealings (grr, still annoying about Epstein and not learning more about his operation from him directly before he died).  I could see how this might never come to light or might not for decades if it is indeed a US secret operation.

I'm totally open to deleting/amending this post if proof that it was another country shows up.  Right now it is just speculation in my view and every country is innocent until proven guilty.  Speculation can be dangerous but that doesn't mean we can't think about the consequences if in fact it was the US (or really, the implications involving any country that would blow it up are important) that is responsible.

[LennStar]

Well, I doubt Putin is going to declare war on the US. And there wont be Sanctions (like always), the US is too big to fail diplomatically, too many states that can be bullied.

More important would be the diplomatic damage to Germany and the rest of the EU. The company that was damaged was a European one, even if owned by Gazprom. 

[GuitarStv]

Honest theoretical question: If it turns out that the US did blow up the pipelines in Sep 2022, would the US receive sanctions and how would that square with politics in general for NATO and the overall Ukraine-Russia situation?  Clearly the environmental impact (usually a left-leaning value) was ignored here regardless of who did the deed.

Sy Hersh (Pulitzer prize winning journo, now in his 80s, seems to have controversy in his history but what whistle-blowing journo with decades of experience doesn't?) seems to have quite the wild story involving Navy divers but only single-sourced and anonymous.  As a consequence no mainstream outlet will publish the story and it remains a giant ? as to who is responsible.  You do have some flimsy economic motivation that Biden and some others even said regarding if the pipeline did not exist or was damaged that it would be "good" but that's pretty speculative.  It would be bizarre if he came up with all these specific details (names who was complicit and the actual secret codename of the project) for it to be false but then again - literally anything could be possible here and I feel like we need additional proof.  I think it's pretty damn important for the overall Ukrainian situation.  It's one thing to indirectly or directly support Ukraine with $/weapons to fight within the rules of war but it's quite another (again, IF THIS IS TRUE) to mess with Russian non-military infrastructure in a HUGE way.  Plus, weird things happen when you look deeply into American political back alley dealings (grr, still annoying about Epstein and not learning more about his operation from him directly before he died).  I could see how this might never come to light or might not for decades if it is indeed a US secret operation.

I'm totally open to deleting/amending this post if proof that it was another country shows up.  Right now it is just speculation in my view and every country is innocent until proven guilty.  Speculation can be dangerous but that doesn't mean we can't think about the consequences if in fact it was the US (or really, the implications involving any country that would blow it up are important) that is responsible.

The US has a long history of doing terrible shit to advance US interests . . . but what's the benefit of blowing up the pipeline for them?  It's not like anyone in America cared when Russia annexed Crimea.

[zolotiyeruki]

The US has a long history of doing terrible shit to advance US interests . . . but what's the benefit of blowing up the pipeline for them?  It's not like anyone in America cared when Russia annexed Crimea.

I'm sure we can speculate endlessly on why the US might have done it.  One reason might be to prevent/slow/discourage countries from re-establishing dependence on Russian gas after the whole Ukraine thing is done.  Russia can't use it as a bargaining chip to discourage western aid to Ukraine ("that's a nice gas supply you have there.  It'd be a pity if something...happened...to it.")  From a very cynical perspective, it makes for more potential customers for US LNG.

I think the "nobody cared about Crimea" has more to do with the fact that Ukraine actually stopped Russia this time (on their own!), has closer ties to the West than they used to, and is running an absolutely masterful PR(/propaganda) campaign.

[TomTX]

Honest theoretical question:

Who had the most to gain from blowing up the pipelines? Perhaps the gas supplier who had cut off supplies in violation of contract and were facing massive financial penalties unless a "force majeure" happened?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[PeteD01]

Looks like Wagner has its best days behind it:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1625908304676368392

[pecunia]

Looks like Wagner has its best days behind it:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1625908304676368392

They say Putin saw the Wagner boss as a bit of a threat.  Maybe, there is still a window waiting for him to fall out of.

Is there going to be a massive offensive against Ukraine? Is Russia training and equipping men somewhere within its vast land? OR Are we seeing the best they have and they are low on gas?  I keep hearing about this vast horde being drafted.  I would think they would have been spotted by satellite.

[LennStar]

Looks like Wagner has its best days behind it:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1625908304676368392

They say Putin saw the Wagner boss as a bit of a threat.  Maybe, there is still a window waiting for him to fall out of.

Is there going to be a massive offensive against Ukraine? Is Russia training and equipping men somewhere within its vast land? OR Are we seeing the best they have and they are low on gas?  I keep hearing about this vast horde being drafted.  I would think they would have been spotted by satellite.

That quarter million recruited is at the front. That is why the Ukrainians have such big trouble. It's just that, as always, you might see 50K at the front lines, but 200K are working in supply etc.

[Travis]

Honest theoretical question:

Who had the most to gain from blowing up the pipelines? Perhaps the gas supplier who had cut off supplies in violation of contract and were facing massive financial penalties unless a "force majeure" happened?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Apparently Russia pulled this move on Georgia years ago as well, sabotaging a pipeline rather than pay shut off fines.

[Travis]

Honest theoretical question: If it turns out that the US did blow up the pipelines in Sep 2022, would the US receive sanctions and how would that square with politics in general for NATO and the overall Ukraine-Russia situation?  Clearly the environmental impact (usually a left-leaning value) was ignored here regardless of who did the deed.

Sy Hersh (Pulitzer prize winning journo, now in his 80s, seems to have controversy in his history but what whistle-blowing journo with decades of experience doesn't?) seems to have quite the wild story involving Navy divers but only single-sourced and anonymous.  As a consequence no mainstream outlet will publish the story and it remains a giant ? as to who is responsible.  You do have some flimsy economic motivation that Biden and some others even said regarding if the pipeline did not exist or was damaged that it would be "good" but that's pretty speculative.  It would be bizarre if he came up with all these specific details (names who was complicit and the actual secret codename of the project) for it to be false but then again - literally anything could be possible here and I feel like we need additional proof.  I think it's pretty damn important for the overall Ukrainian situation.  It's one thing to indirectly or directly support Ukraine with $/weapons to fight within the rules of war but it's quite another (again, IF THIS IS TRUE) to mess with Russian non-military infrastructure in a HUGE way.  Plus, weird things happen when you look deeply into American political back alley dealings (grr, still annoying about Epstein and not learning more about his operation from him directly before he died).  I could see how this might never come to light or might not for decades if it is indeed a US secret operation.

I'm totally open to deleting/amending this post if proof that it was another country shows up.  Right now it is just speculation in my view and every country is innocent until proven guilty.  Speculation can be dangerous but that doesn't mean we can't think about the consequences if in fact it was the US (or really, the implications involving any country that would blow it up are important) that is responsible.

https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe

Dismantling Hersh's story piece by piece.

[evme]

Who had the most to gain from blowing up the pipelines? Perhaps the gas supplier who had cut off supplies in violation of contract and were facing massive financial penalties unless a "force majeure" happened?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Agree. Occam's razor.

[LennStar]

Who had the most to gain from blowing up the pipelines? Perhaps the gas supplier who had cut off supplies in violation of contract and were facing massive financial penalties unless a "force majeure" happened?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Agree. Occam's razor.

I don't know. It is definitely a (post war) loss for Russia, and for the fines they could just not pay them. Of course it could be that Putin thought the gas sale would never happen again anyway, but at that time it was too early imho to get to this decision. We were still panicking with "winter will be freezing cold homes!".

If it was Russia then the most likely explanation for me is a message to the West "See, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to get Ukraine, so don't send in more weapons, or something might happen to your other pipelines."

[lemanfan]

Have anyone seen any good sources of the recent events in Moldova?

I'm thinking of the government stepping down, talks of coup d'état attempt by Russia etc.

[sonofsven]

Honest theoretical question: If it turns out that the US did blow up the pipelines in Sep 2022, would the US receive sanctions and how would that square with politics in general for NATO and the overall Ukraine-Russia situation?  Clearly the environmental impact (usually a left-leaning value) was ignored here regardless of who did the deed.

Sy Hersh (Pulitzer prize winning journo, now in his 80s, seems to have controversy in his history but what whistle-blowing journo with decades of experience doesn't?) seems to have quite the wild story involving Navy divers but only single-sourced and anonymous.  As a consequence no mainstream outlet will publish the story and it remains a giant ? as to who is responsible.  You do have some flimsy economic motivation that Biden and some others even said regarding if the pipeline did not exist or was damaged that it would be "good" but that's pretty speculative.  It would be bizarre if he came up with all these specific details (names who was complicit and the actual secret codename of the project) for it to be false but then again - literally anything could be possible here and I feel like we need additional proof.  I think it's pretty damn important for the overall Ukrainian situation.  It's one thing to indirectly or directly support Ukraine with $/weapons to fight within the rules of war but it's quite another (again, IF THIS IS TRUE) to mess with Russian non-military infrastructure in a HUGE way.  Plus, weird things happen when you look deeply into American political back alley dealings (grr, still annoying about Epstein and not learning more about his operation from him directly before he died).  I could see how this might never come to light or might not for decades if it is indeed a US secret operation.

I'm totally open to deleting/amending this post if proof that it was another country shows up.  Right now it is just speculation in my view and every country is innocent until proven guilty.  Speculation can be dangerous but that doesn't mean we can't think about the consequences if in fact it was the US (or really, the implications involving any country that would blow it up are important) that is responsible.

I listened to the interview yesterday on Democracy Now. I was not surprised because, as has been mentioned, history.
But who knows what the truth is.

https://www.democracynow.org/2023/2/15/nord_stream_sy_hersh