[flagged]
>If this is the case, then I guess Zelensky doesn't need any western weapons, and yet he's asking every day for more.
I'd want lots of artillery and modern weapons if I had to fight 200,000 stupid men with old soviet tanks, AKs and shovels too.
The 50- and 60-year old tanks Russia's sending now, are they so useless that the Ukrainians need no weapons to defend agains them? Use your good sense and judge.
In January 2022 the armed forces of Ukraine fielded equipment that, depending on type, amounted to numbers 1/5th to 1/10th that of Russia.
With western support, which in the case of the United States has amounted to approximately 1% of annual federal spending last year, they defeated the initial advance and have fought their numerically superior adversary to a standstill.
Approximately 1% is factual and verifiable. Three rounds of aid were appropriated in FY2022 amounting to less than $68 billion. $68 billion is 1.08% of the government's 2022 spending of 6.27 trillion, so "less than $68 billion" is less than 1%-- and not all of the allocated money has actually been spent so the percentage is even lower.
What Ukraine is doing is nothing short of amazing. There is irrefutable documentary evidence that the Armed Forces of Ukraine has destroyed over 1,500 Russian main battle tanks and over 8,000 other armored vehicles.
There is irrefutable, unquestionable, documentary evidence that Russia is reactivating Soviet-era weapons systems to replace the equipment lost so far, equipment equipment losses that exceed the total amount prepared for the initial invasion.
The clear, publicly stated, unquestionable, goal of Russia is the genocide of the Ukrainian people.
If you do not believe the previous factual statement I can supply sources including but not limited to publicly-televised statements made by both government officials and state-run media.
Genocide must not be allowed to happen.
If Ukraine had possessed the weapons systems that are now being provided to Ukraine, on which Ukrainians are being trained on in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States as I write this comment, prior to the invasion, the invasion would have been defeated months ago.
The best thing the world can do to ensure peace in Europe, East Asia, and elsewhere around the world to to present a united front against totalitarian expansion, which is what many countries are doing.
Spare me your "butwhaddabouts" I care little about the past and greatly about the present and future.
How many doctors could we have trained up from nothing for 68+ billion? (I obviously didn't come up with this idea. Eisenhower said it forever ago)
We spend more than any other country on earth. ($4.3 trillion in total, ~$800 billion in annual federal spending alone)
Per-capita we spend the most but our systems suck.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?most_...
If that 1% was redirected, hell, if every single dollar of the defense budget was completely transferred into healthcare, it wouldn't make a difference.
The insurance and pharmaceutical companies would gobble it all up.
There is more than enough money already.
Increasing spending from $4,300 billion to $4,368 billion won't fix anything.
The only way to improve our systems here at home is to improve them.
Same goes for education and social security.
The only nation that spends more on education per-capita is Luxembourg and they don't count because they are the size of a postage stamp. If we completely zeroed-out ALL defense and Ukraine spending nothing would change, the system would soak up the money with no net effect.
In terms of social welfare spending the United States spends the exact same per-capita as most of its peers. We are right in between Germany and Italy in terms of spending. Same as above, the broken systems we run would just soak up the money with no effect.
That $68 billion is having a huge impact in Ukraine, though.
edit: Think of it another way. $68 billion is about $200 per American. That isn't even enough to cover the cost of an annual checkup with a physician assistant at a clinic, when billed to insurance. (my last one was billed at ~$500 to Blue Cross with an out of pocket cost of $85)
If we zeroed out Ukraine aid and sent everyone a check that could only be used for healthcare, that would be about enough to get your blood pressure checked by a nurse-- and practically nothing else.
If you assume that it costs 2 million dollars to train a single doctor, thats 34000 doctors you could theoretically add to the supply. Instead, we turn it into a bunch of dead, dismembered, and probably now deranged people, and free floating weapons that will inevitably end up in the hands of some future enemy.
The fact that we can't currently efficiently turn money into useful results over here doesnt make me feel any better about turning that money into arms and handing them out like candy thousands of miles away.
How do we know aren't going to be a few trillion poorer in 20 years leaving Ukraine the same way we left Afghanistan?
Because:
1. We aren’t “in” Ukraine so we can’t leave— they are fighting for themselves, and
2. It is unlikely they will give up and submit like the ANA because of their morale, which
3. Is evidenced by this POW, knowing he is about to be executed, saying “slava ukraine” milliseconds before having his brains blown out by Russian war criminals https://twitter.com/protasm19751/status/1632740245237030914
Sure, we aren't (at least officially anyway, not yet) physically in Ukraine, but I don't see how that makes any difference for the question. Imagine I said "stopping funding" instead of "leaving."
As for the rest, I don't doubt these people are beyond devoted to their cause, and I wish them all the best. However, I doubt our involvement on the whole is going to make anything better for anyone in the end other than the people manufacturing the arms. We certainly didn't end up making a difference for that POW in your link.