Europe at War

[Johnnie Burgess]

This understates US aid rather a lot.

Kiel Institute for the World Economy: Ukraine Support Tracker

Statista: Total bilateral aid commitments to Ukraine between January 24 and July 1, 2022, by country and type

Japan has given more aid, though humanitarian aid, than almost all European countries.  On a percentage of GDP basis, Poland is shelling out the dough.

The danger is the US has given 1/3 of it supply of stinger and javalins.  It may take years to get back the level we had in stinger missiles

[71 dB]

Since February the US has given 7 billion dollars in military aid. Has anyone else given that much?

That is a lot of money, but still barely 1 % of the military budget.

[Todd]

The danger is the US has given 1/3 of it supply of stinger and javalins.  It may take years to get back the level we had in stinger missiles

That is not particularly dangerous, actually.  A DoD official, though I cannot recall which one, pointed out to Congress that the US has other, more capable systems and can afford to give away 40+ year old (Stinger) and 25+ year old (Javelin) technologies from publicly stated stockpiles.

[Madiel]

Since February the US has given 7 billion dollars in military aid. Has anyone else given that much?

You know, there's a Bible parable that points out how giving is better measured by what you have left over afterwards.

[Johnnie Burgess]

You know, there's a Bible parable that points out how giving is better measured by what you have left over afterwards.

Sure you would think differently if we use up our supplies and China attacks Australia.

[71 dB]

Sure you would think differently if we use up our supplies and China attacks Australia.

Nobody forced the US to take the role of World police after WWII. The US took that role willingly and has certainly benefited from it. So, what exactly are you whining about? Europe and Australia certainly are not to blame for the problems (corruption/oligarchy/cultural division/gun violence etc.) in the US.

[Johnnie Burgess]

Nobody forced the US to take the role of World police after WWII. The US took that role willingly and has certainly benefited from it. So, what exactly are you whining about? Europe and Australia certainly are not to blame for the problems (corruption/oligarchy/cultural division/gun violence etc.) in the US.

So you would not say anything if the US stopped supplying the Ukraine?

[71 dB]

So you would not say anything if the US stopped supplying the Ukraine?

If the US stopped  supplying the Ukraine, I would definitely be at least curious about why the change in politics, but that was not my point. My point wasn't what the rest of the World thinks/feels about the US being the World policy. My point is nobody is forcing the US to supply the Ukraine. The US does it willingly, because the US wants a "western" Ukraine rather than one annexed to Russia. The reasons can be cynical.

[Johnnie Burgess]

If the US stopped  supplying the Ukraine, I would definitely be at least curious about why the change in politics, but that was not my point. My point wasn't what the rest of the World thinks/feels about the US being the World policy. My point is nobody is forcing the US to supply the Ukraine. The US does it willingly, because the US wants a "western" Ukraine rather than one annexed to Russia. The reasons can be cynical.

Politicians in the US like do this. A lot of Americans think it is time to take of our people first.

[71 dB]

A lot of Americans think it is time to take of our people first.

Well, you Americans need to start by taking money out of politics. Before that happens, nothing will fundamentally change.

[Johnnie Burgess]

Well, you Americans need to start by taking money out of politics. Before that happens, nothing will fundamentally change.

And term limits.  No need for anyone to be in Congress over 40 years.  And maybe time to move US capital.

[Todd]

Sure you would think differently if we use up our supplies and China attacks Australia.

The US will not use up its supplies and China is in no position to attack Australia right now.  China does not yet have a sufficient capacity to project power in such a way, and even by its estimates it will not until sometime next decade.  To counter that, the AUKUS deal demonstrated the new level of commitment by the English-speaking allies, which will grow substantially over the next generation.  Australia will become the Indo-Pacific equivalent of the UK for the US.

[Johnnie Burgess]

The US will not use up its supplies and China is in no position to attack Australia right now.  China does not yet have a sufficient capacity to project power in such a way, and even by its estimates it will not until sometime next decade.  To counter that, the AUKUS deal demonstrated the new level of commitment by the English-speaking allies, which will grow substantially over the next generation.  Australia will become the Indo-Pacific equivalent of the UK for the US.

And if the population stats are right, China will soon at the point where most of their people will over the age of 60.

But it looks like another situation where they will want the US to be the one to provide most of the military supplies.

[Todd]

And if the population stats are right, China will soon at the point where most of their people will over the age of 60.

China does indeed face demographic challenges, which is why the one-child policy was eliminated.  India will soon overtake China in population, with one report indicating that happened this past March.  If one considers the Indian sub-continent as a whole, it is already larger than China.  This will have global security implications, which is why the US should and will pursue closer relations with India.

But it looks like another situation where they will want the US to be the one to provide most of the military supplies.

Given Australia's key strategic location and vast size, it is the right partner in the right place at the right time.  Even while the US should significantly reduce security commitments to Europe, it should increase them in the Indo-Pacific.  Alas, we will try to expand both.  That is sheer folly.

[Que]

That is a lot of money, but still barely 1 % of the military budget.

Exactly. The US military budget for 2022 is $778 billion, and supporting Ukraine has sofar caused not a single US casualty.

Just compare that with the monumental effort by the Bush administration to destabilise the Middle East and facilitate Muslim fundamentalist terrorism, also know as the Iraq War: 4,424 US casualties  (I guess other casualties are not relevant in this context) and a $758 billion military budget and almost $2 trillion in total costs.

So what, American interests in Europe are not important enough? 

[Todd]

Exactly. The US military budget for 2022 is $778 billion, and supporting Ukraine has sofar caused not a single US casualty.

That does not make spending tens of billions of dollars - not just seven billion dollars - sound policy.  Not even close. 

So what, American interests in Europe are not important enough? 

How much has the US spent on defending Europe over the last eighty years, in inflation adjusted dollars?  The DoD does not break out expenditures in a way that allows one to discern that information, purposefully.  I am confident it far exceeds $2 trillion.

Europe is the wealthiest, highest income region in the world.  It should provide for its own defense.

[Johnnie Burgess]

Exactly. The US military budget for 2022 is $778 billion, and supporting Ukraine has sofar caused not a single US casualty.

Just compare that with the monumental effort by the Bush administration to destabilise the Middle East and facilitate Muslim fundamentalist terrorism, also know as the Iraq War: 4,424 US casualties  (I guess other casualties are not relevant in this context) and a $758 billion military budget and almost $2 trillion in total costs.

So what, American interests in Europe are not important enough? 

Why is it the job of the US to supply the Ukraine with military supplies?

[Todd]

Why is it the job of the US to supply the Ukraine with military supplies?

It is not.  But the response is an example of intrinsically contradictory views: On the one hand, the US acts as world policeman of its own accord, but on the other it should spend more acting as world policeman.  Especially to defend Europe.

The US should not act as world policeman.  Europe should defend itself.  From Europe, it turns out.

[Que]

Why is it the job of the US to supply the Ukraine with military supplies?

It's a choice, up to the US. Neither Ukraine nor Europe in general is "entitled" no any of the US tax payer's money.

But in my view supporting Ukraine is money better spent than the huge amount of money and human lives wasted on the multiple US  military "adventures" of the past decades.

[Todd]

But in my view supporting Ukraine is money better spent than the huge amount of money and human lives wasted on the multiple US  military "adventures" of the past decades.

How? 

And why can't European powers provide the support instead?  Surely the fate of Ukraine is of even greater salience to people who share the same continent.