90 billion of the Ukraine support moneys is being spent on replenishing US stocks of munitions provided to Ukraine (line 1). Training and intelligence support of Ukrainian forces being conducted in Western Europe (line 2).

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, February 20, 2025 - 08:37 pm: Edit

From the AP.

One of the adult bodies released by Hamas was not a hostage, but a random individual.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Thursday, February 20, 2025 - 08:37 pm: Edit

President Trump is a master salesman, and he isn't worried about exaggerating his claims or riffing on a topic. As far as I'm concerned, a saying I heard years ago, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story", definitely applies to him. Similar exaggerated numbers occur when he talks about trade deficits with various countries, I focus on comments on Canada.

President Trump is telling a story to support his preferred policies, he thinks the money sent to Ukraine is a waste, or at least sending any more is too much. Americans can determine themselves whether you agree with him or whether you don't. But, when he is riffing on numbers, I don't believe he is a reliable source of exact numbers. I don't know if I would convince anyone who doesn't agree with me but I could probably provide hundreds of examples.

A simple google search run 5 min ago "is trump correct that us has sent 350 billion to ukraine" leads to multiple news articles fact checking his statements this week.

copied from factcheck.org
Since 2022, Congress has appropriated about $174.2 billion in aid for Ukraine, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, last updated on Jan. 13. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a budget watchdog group, similarly puts the total since the last congressional appropriation at $174.8 billion.

I tried to change up my search terms a few different ways to see if I could find a conservative news source backing up Trumps numbers but I couldn't. If someone wants to send me a link, please do. I did find an article on Breitbart that was two weeks old backing up the 175 billion number.

You can also google search "how much aid has the US sent Ukraine" (ie don't mention Trumps name if you are worried about biasing the search engine) and find articles that don't mention Trumps claim but align with about $175 billion.

Zelensky has said that they haven't received half the money that President Trump has claimed was sent. At the Miami investment summit on Tuesday, President Trump spun that as they have lost half the money. Or maybe they haven't lost half the money, because Trump inflated his first number.

Ukraine counts $76 billion as aid to them in their control. So as an example, if the US spends 5 billion running training programs for Ukrainian soldiers, pilots. It's money spent by the US for the purpose of supporting Ukraine so Congress counts it, but it's not money that Ukraine actually received or spent themselves, they never had the chance to spend it corruptly as they never had those $s in their control. Maybe the only corrupt thing they could do is send some important persons son to take part in the training so he isn't on the front line.

An article on American Enterprise Institute (which is a right leaning organization), said in a report last year that about 70% of US money allocated as aid to Ukraine is spent in the US replenishing weapons stockpiles.

Trump has also claimed this week that the US has given 200 billion more than Europe. Looking into that, it doesn't seem to be backed up either. The US seems to have given a little more <$10 billion extra in military aid. Europeans countries combined have given more than $10 billion more in humanitarian aid (food, fuel, medicine, cash).

For my personal opinion, I do not believe my country, Canada, has stepped up or done enough. Canada has sent about $14 billion US combined military and humanitarian. Which as the US is about 10 times our size would scale up to be about 20% less than US commitments. I also don't believe that Canada spends near enough on it's military in general and we are seriously lagging behind our NATO commitments. We will likely be having a national election in the next two months and I will communicate my opinion to my candidates and be voting on it.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, February 20, 2025 - 08:54 pm: Edit

SVC, the military aid to Ukraine is mostly in the form of weapons, not money.

Furthermore, in light of the tremendous effectiveness of Ukraine's military, it seems highly likely that the vast majority of the aid is being used as intended.

So absolutely yes, spend my money on helping Ukraine. It's far better than the alternative.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 20, 2025 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Will J: I know that, you aren't arguing with me, but with Trump. I will comment that figures don't lie, but liars figure. You can call something this and count that, or call it that and count this. You can create any number you want if you define the terms the right way. There IS a way to get $350 billion. (I have no idea how you count it, maybe include the money spent to build back our war reserve stocks?)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 20, 2025 - 09:45 pm: Edit

$5000 Doge rebate checks? Uh... anyone else think this is stupid? We have this $38 trillion thing called "the national debt" and it is made up of the sum of the annual deficits and surpluses back to 1776. As long as we run a deficit, any expenses DOGE cuts reduce the deficit, while rebate checks to taxpayers INCREASE the deficit. Basically, Elon is printing money (or borrowing it) to buy fans. Not a good concept. Every dime he saves needs to reduce the deficit and if he (somehow) cut enough to eliminate the deficit and produce a surplus it needs to go on the DEBT.

Elon screwed up. The one thing someone in his position must never do is to think out loud and commit the boss to something without the boss approving in advance.

I will also comment that USAID spending millions of borrowed/printed dollars to stage an opera in a foreign country is a waste of money, a stupid idea, and criminally negligent, I don't care what the opera is about.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 20, 2025 - 10:31 pm: Edit

You are supposed to check with me before posting links but given the "little bit of string" Jean has allowed I'm going to let links to official US government sites slide through. I should comment that just because it is a government site doesn't mean it's accurate; administrations often rig numbers to show what they want and a month into administration 47 many government sites still show administration 46 data. It's a big government and frankly neither side of it can be trusted.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Thursday, February 20, 2025 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Sorry, who posted a link? If you are talking about my comment, I referred to sites that I went to for information and how I got there, I copied two sentences from an article and stated the source but I don't think I posted a link.

If stating that I found info at factcheck.org or Breitbart counts as posting a link then I apologize. That's not what I would have thought counted as posting a link. You can email me with any examples you consider incorrect.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, February 20, 2025 - 10:56 pm: Edit

Jessica Orsini posted one.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Thursday, February 20, 2025 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Steve, this morning you posted the following and I've tried to think on my response and waited a bit to answer.

>>I mean, what else is there to do? Keep the war going forever? The EU and US taxpayers were not going to put up with that much longer. Everyone is worried that Ukraine will spiral into a nuclear war. Attrition wars are bloody and until one side clearly caves in (much predicted by not in sight) it's going to be another open sore likely to get worse and bigger. I don't like this solution but I am at a loss to suggest a different solution.

>>So, other than sending in half a million NATO troops and literally going to war with a country that has a thousand nuclear missiles, and other than "continue the attrition indefinitely" which the taxpayers won't support past next July, WHAT IS THE ALTERNATE PLAN? Did I mention that I really do not like the current plan?

To me, the first question to ask is what do the majority of the Ukrainian people want. The American people can talk about whether they want to spend any more money, but is ending the war really their decision. While it's impossible to tell for certain, there is mostly a Western free press allowed to travel throughout Ukraine, interview people, tell their stories. From what I understand, I'm sure the majority of Ukrainians want the war to end, but they don't want the war to end under terms that leave them weaker, exposed, and vulnerable to the next attack. They don't want a deal that says they have to stand down, demobilize, remove their air defenses. Given that they are the ones, other than small numbers of volunteers, doing the fighting and dying that should count for a lot. This is different than Vietnam, Iraq, Afghaniston, where Americans (and others) were fighting and dying for a local population that was not united in their gratitude.

I haven't seen any recurring articles about mass desertions among the fighting soldiers. They also have close to a million people as active military. If they were close to breaking as a people I think we'd be hearing about it. I know many people have lost their respect for the media, but I don't believe all the different sources are burying that story.

I think their fear is that President Trump wants to say, "I negotiated an end to this war", their worry is that he won't care if it's a bad deal for them.

You said the EU and US taxpayers are not going to put up with it much longer. I haven't seen that from the EU in any news sources I follow there. Some countries, sure, but not in general across the continent. I have recently seen comments from some EU countries, that they need to double down and do more. Trump can say, the US tax payers are done, I won't sign any more aid packages. But he will anger Americans who think they should be supported, anger those who think $60 billion a year to put a serious crimp in Russia is cheap, and it seems that there is still a sizable portion of republican voters and congressmen/senators in that group. It's easier for him to shut off the money if the war is over, the blowback from the US walking away while others keep supporting them may be something he doesn't want.

What will we do as the west if the Ukrainians say, no thanks, even if the US stops supplying us, we're going to keep fighting.

If the European countries doubled their military contribution that would cover the US $'s. Even if the Europeans just maintained their contributions or up'd them a little Ukraine might keep going. Would Trump order US defense industries to not accept European orders for Ukraine out of pique. The problem is European industry isn't capable at this point of making the weapons, vehicles, ammunition required. Even if someone else pays, US defense manufacturing is probably required. Will Trump say, even if France or Germany or Canada pays the bill, I won't authorize the sale of replacement patriot missiles to Ukraine to keep their women and children from being killed in indiscriminate missile attacks.

I have seen articles saying Russian inflation is getting worse, their central bank is trying to hold the war time economy together but the civilian economy is shutting down. I don't think this war will go on forever. Likely at some point in the next couple years one side or the other, or both, will break. Ukrainians may then need to submit to a humiliating defeat, but it won't be because they were sold out.

So my opinion is, if the people fighting for their country and freedom want to continue the attrition indefinitely, isn't that their choice?

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 02:59 am: Edit

SVC, you were asking for alternatives? Here is the realistic one IMHO; Dana is right about the Russian economy, it is getting worse for the Russians. That is the obvious target.
Russia is totally dependent on oil and gas exports. The price cap on Russian oil sales is 60$ set by G7. That can be lowered a dollar or two.
The so called shadow fleet can be stopped, even lawfully*.
I am sure there is a ton more that can be done without resorting to arms. Let them print money to cover the shortfall, and get into hyperinflation and crash.
Note that they have to pay all their imports in other currencies than roubles. Like all the important electronics in their weapons, and all the machine tools for their factories.
There is a reason they build Shaheeds in numbers, but not Calibr.

However on the subject of arms it is important to accept that for the EU and to lesser extent the US this is a war where there is an existential threat. The Ukraine army is effectively OUR army.
Give them the weapons to win, but not by attrition. Give them cruise missiles that can strike Russia's oil and gas production, and export facilities. Reuters reported in august last year about a deal to deliver JASSM to Ukraine. Do that and give them the extended range version with no target restrictions. See those refineries burn.
There is not much Russia can do about that.

*There is always the option to board and impound the vessels. Send the crews to Guantanamo. Fear should keep those ships from sailing.

I got other ideas how to boil the frog alive but that is about the US getting involved directly so i can leave that for another post.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 07:19 am: Edit

Politics

It's all down to that - in the sense, if your a Politican - do you give $1 billion to the Ukraine to help the war go on anotther month...

...or do you feel spending $1 billion on a new Hospital, to help you win your next election is better?

The Germans seem to be moving towards the latter -and the UK probably doesn't have the money for either, the way our economy is going.

So for Ukrainians - at what point does an 'OK' deal become a 'bad deal' to a 'take it or cease to exist deal' - if the West does stop funding you AND the Russians haven't collapsed (which is the reason why they may be willing to accept an OK deal now, rather than a good deal tomorrow).

So both sides have alot to lose.

Take the deal you know rather than the devil you don't?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 08:49 am: Edit

Thank you for the leeway on that link post, Steve; it's appreciated.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 08:53 am: Edit

Steve, I am in full agreement with you on the "DOGE refund" checks. It's a transparent stunt that would have the dual bad effects of ramping up inflation while ramping up the debt.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 09:00 am: Edit

Re: what the Ukrainians want... I realize the following is a very small sample size, but it's what I've got.

For what it's worth, one of my coworkers is Ukrainian (she works in our soil analysis lab, and has for a good decade now); she acquired U.S. citizenship in the last few years and was able to vote last year.

She has friends in eastern Ukraine -- not directly in the occupied Donbas, but close enough to be dealing with no end of hardships -- who asked her to vote for Trump, on the belief that he would bring about a negotiated end to the war, and she did so.

She and they are no longer happy with that vote after the events of the past week.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 10:58 am: Edit

Paul Howard, the deal that UA and EU can accept is one the Russians don't accept, and vice versa. Of course they could accept a peace at all cost deal, but that would be one leaving Russia at such an advantage they will just press on.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 01:01 pm: Edit

I continue to think that the Ukraine war will continue until there is a serious breakthrough. If the war goes into a fluid mobile stage I don't see the Russians as being able to contain a fast and dynamic offensive.

Other things Ukrainian allies could do:
1) Lend lease some small ships and let the Ukranians sink some Russian freighters. Or place some mines inside Russian ports using Q ships.

2) Mercenaries (ie soldiers from a non Russian or Ukrainian army) seize Kallingrad. The place is tiny; there a 3 day "Special Military Operation" could overrun the whole place. Or the Sakhalins. Or Transnistria. Or Abkhazia.

3) Something to decapitate the Russian leadership. Like has happened to high level Russians recently (scooter bomb...)

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 01:44 pm: Edit

4) send F-22s on a live fire exercise to Ukraine.

5) strike the N Korean arms deliveries with Tomahawks. They dare not to retaliate.

6) attack Russian oil and gas with Tomahawk strikes. The Russians dare not retaliate.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 01:49 pm: Edit

"What the Ukrainians want"
If that equals infinite access to my checkbook I'm gonna call a stop to it. Trump definitely is. The EU isn't going to keep funding the war forever. Both Ukraine and Russia think the other is on the edge of breaking.

1. I think that would make the war bigger which no one seems to want to do.

2. Directly attacking Russian territory (even Kaliningrad) isn't going to be something Putin helplessly ignores. No doubt NATO would win a bigger war, but a bigger war is a messier and more expensive war with more damage to repair later.

3. Decapitation. How are you going to do that?

4. Ha ha. War between NATO and Russia.

5 & 6. Oh, they would retaliate.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Jessica: It would not ramp up inflation as much as pre-DOGE spending would, but it would ramp it up more than reducing the deficit.

Remember everyone, if I borrow collect taxes of 1000 and borrow 1000 and spend 2000 it's bad.

If I collect 1000 and borrow 500 and spend 1500 it's less bad but the vested interests what lost 500 are going to grumble.

If I collect 1000 and borrow 0 and spend 1000 it's great, but vested interests are going to howl.

If I collect 1000 and borrow 0 and spend 900 and pay 100 on the debt it's wonderful but the howling will be hysterical.

If I collect 1000, borrow 500, spend 1500, then borrow another 100 to pay on the debt which increases the deficit and the debt by 100, did I gain anything other the buying votes?

If I spent my whole life complaining how one party buys votes with welfare do I get to feel happy when the other party buys votes with rebate checks?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Steve: with regard to inflationary pressures, the sudden influx of $5,000 per adult citizen would almost certainly correspond with a sudden increase in demand on, well, pretty much everything (as happened with at least the second round of COVID relief checks); that should in theory cause an inflationary spike.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Per the Financial Times: U.S. national security adviser Mike Waltz has said that Zelenskyy will sign a critical minerals deal with the US in “the very short term” and that the war in Ukraine will end “soon”, although Kyiv says several key points must still be agreed; the statements were made at CPAC today.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 10:41 pm: Edit

The u.s. economy is already in an inflationary cycle.

Has been for several years already.

It is , somewhat, an open question if 5,000 per adult citizen (which is distinctly different from per adult tax paying citizen), would be less inflationary, about equal in inflation or more inflationary than the Biden administration policies.

The DOGE cuts would tend to offset inflation, and unemployment increases as a result of termination of employment of large numbers of government employees would also tend to offset inflationary effects.

Economic activity does not occur in isolation, one has to look at an entire economic system. Focused on a single factor (such as Jessica’s observation about $5,000 Doge checks) rarely accounts for all changes in economic activity in an economy as large and diverse as that of the United States.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 21, 2025 - 11:30 pm: Edit

Jessica, the fallacy of your theory is that if the $5000 isn't given to the taxpayers, it will either be:
1. spent on other government spending, and will inject the same amount of money into the economy and cause the same inflation.
2. Paid on the national debt (retiring government bonds) which also injects that cash into the economy, with the same result.
Economics are hard. Lot of moving parts.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, February 22, 2025 - 09:46 am: Edit

A recent NYT (new York Times) article quoted University Of California, Irvine sociologist Professor Wang Feng paper predicting that China’s population decline will reach 350 million people by the end of the century (2099).

Down from 1.4 billion people, births are not replacing the total number of deaths from all causes. The paper also purported to say (I have not read the paper, just quoting from the article) that 22% of the current population of China is 60 years old and older.

This is after three successive years of negative population growth having been previously reported.

The article also reported that China’s situation is a “death spiral “, though that might be an editorial comment by the NYT, and not from the original paper.

There was also a mention that the Chinese Government has been accused of under reporting the total number of deaths that occurred during the COVID19 pandemic.