Posted on 05/27/2023 9:03:50 AM PDT by marcusmaximus
This is from your first link.
“Then-president Barack Obama, while providing millions of dollars in aid, resisted sending lethal support, fearing that such a military buildup might provoke Putin to strike.”
“Yet in 2018, with Donald Trump as president, the U.S. reversed course and agreed to provide Ukraine with $47 million worth of lethal weapons, which included 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 37 launchers.”
This is from your second link.
“After a year of internal debate, Obama declined to provide lethal aid, overruling most of his national security team.”
“But Obama’s refusal to provide lethal weaponry had by that point become a Republican talking point, leading then-Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to charge in 2015 that the “Ukrainians are being slaughtered and we’re sending blankets and meals.”
Four years later, Trump would echo that charge, claiming that while his administration had sent “antitank busters” to Ukraine, Obama had provided only “pillows and sheets.””
“And God Bless Trump for starting the arming of Ukraine...”
No, he didn’t. From 2014, when Russia first invaded Ukraine, through February 27, 2023, the United States has committed about $34 billion in security assistance. Of this amount, the Biden Administration has committed more than $31.7 billion in security assistance since the start of the 2022 war.
The Ukraine decided to release themselves in 1991 when the Soviets disbanded in Russia. Russia had no way of stopping it even though they were against it but there were a number of satellites that bailed on them and Russia was in a transition phase of their government.
So I feel the Ukraine made the decision to pull out of a governing relationship with Russia and that’s their decision, they should fight their own battles.
The Ukraine is nothing more than a financial operation for the US. We have federal things in there like nuclear, prisons, and we export metal, fertilizer and seed oils. They are not a member of any organization the US is involved with. But they aren’t the only group we have protected either with money or bodies over the last few years. And this time, we are in a financial low point that could be costly to our nation for it.
Through Fiscal Year 2022, the United States federal government has spent and obligated $8 trillion dollars on the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. This figure includes: direct Congressional war appropriations; war-related increases to the Pentagon base budget; veterans care and disability; increases in the homeland security budget; interest payments on direct war borrowing; foreign assistance spending; and estimated future obligations for veterans’ care.
This total omits many other expenses, such as the macroeconomic costs to the US economy; the opportunity costs of not investing war dollars in alternative sectors; future interest on war borrowing; and local government and private war costs.
And it has a down the road effect.
The current wars have been paid for almost entirely by borrowing. This borrowing has raised the US budget deficit, increased the national debt, and had other macroeconomic effects, such as raising consumer interest rates. Unless the US immediately repays the money borrowed for war, there will also be future interest payments. We estimate that interest payments could total over $6.5 trillion by the 2050s.
And at a local level:
Spending on the wars has involved opportunity costs for the US economy. Although military spending does produce jobs, spending in other areas such as health care could produce more jobs. Additionally, investment in nonmilitary public infrastructure such as roads and schools has not grown at the same rate as investment in military infrastructure.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic
The US has not been in a war as the primary combatant since the end of WW II. From Korea forward, we have been a secondary contributor to every firefight like Vietnam, Serbia, Afghanistan, and many others the public doesn’t know about. It was the Ukraine’s decision to start the conflict in 1991 when they defied Russia. They need to either skit or get off the pot. And the only difference is from all the scenarios is that we, officially, haven’t put boots on the ground openly. Otherwise, huge amounts of money and people have been harmed with this US government stupidity and is going to get worse when the Ukraine defaults on the bills.
wy69
Obama’s policy of refusing to send weapons was shameful and stupid! The media should shred him for that, but of course they won’t. They conveniently forget that the first real weapons were sent by the Trump administration.
The bear didn’t invade the UK.
https://fulcrum.sg/will-vietnam-be-able-to-wean-itself-off-russian-arms/
“According to Vietnam’s official statistics, between 1955 and 1975, the Soviet Union provided Vietnam with, among other things, 1,357 missile launching systems, more than 18,300 missiles of different types, 316 fighter jets, 52 warships, 21 transportation ships, 687 tanks, 601 armored vehicles and 1,332 artillery tractors.”
At least 3,000 fighting men too.
Oh does it prohibit helping anther nation.
And we didn’t start it.
bkmk
Ukraine is our ally.
Russia is our enemy.
If we didn’t enter WW2 we’d probably be flying swastikas.
Or hammers and sickles.
PUBLISHED SAT, DEC 23 2017
The Trump administration approved a plan to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine
The new arms include American-made Javelin anti-tank missiles
this is putin’s war
he can end anytime he chooses
are you really that daft?
I repeat:
May Ukraine get all the weapons and assistance they need to defeat putin/russia as soon as possible
May it be so!
In response to a post saying “”And God Bless Trump for starting the arming of Ukraine so it could defend itself.””
You said
“”This never happened at all. The Obama and Trump administrations didn’t arm Ukraine.””
Actually, President Trump did reverse the Obama policy and started supplying weapons to Ukraine.
You might remember how important those Javelins were in ruining the invasion plans of Russia when they were defeated in the early fighting.
And since Russia has not attacked the US, we would be starting it.
Not sure, but the British Storm missile could be armed with tactical nuclear warheads. Does anyone know for sure if it can?
[Jim Noble] Obviously, delivering these weapons are acts of war.[Ansel12] Explain that deliberate lie.
I bring your attention to the following Legal Sidebar by the U.S. Congressional Research Service.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10735
International Neutrality Law and U.S. Military Assistance to UkraineApril 26, 2022
Congressional Research Service, Legal Sidebar
At page 2:
Sources and Requirements of the Law of Neutrality
The law of neutrality has its roots in 17th and 18th century state practice in which countries developed a system of reciprocal rights and obligations for neutral states and belligerents. Neutral states have a duty not to participate in hostilities and to be impartial in their conduct toward belligerents. In return, belligerents are obligated to respect neutral states’ territory, and neutrals are permitted to trade with all sides of the conflict if they do so in an impartial way. Countries eventually came to accept certain principles of neutrality as part of customary international law—a body of law that is derived from state practice followed out of a sense of legal obligation.
Many facets of neutrality law were defined in two treaties adopted at a 1907 peace conference:
• the Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V) and
• the Hague Convention (XIII) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII).
Under Hague V and XIII, neutral states cannot provide “ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever” to belligerents. The treaties exempt humanitarian assistance from this prohibition, and they do not require neutral states to prevent private companies from selling munitions and war material. Neutral states also have an obligation to prevent belligerents from committing certain hostile acts on neutral states’ territory, and Hague V and XIII require neutrals to intern and detain belligerent forces found in their territory. As part of their corresponding set of duties, belligerents must treat neutral states’ territory as inviolable. Belligerents may not move troops, munitions, or supplies, across neutral territory, and they may not set up communication apparatuses or recruit combatants, among other things, on neutral territory. Although Hague V and Hague XIII each have fewer than 35 state parties, the United States, Ukraine, and Russia have ratified both treaties.
Some observers view Hague V and XIII as reflecting customary international law, which is binding on all countries absent an objection. Others disagree with this view. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Defense observed that “it may be incorrect to assume” that Hague V and XIII reflect customary international law when “current events are quite different” from the time the treaties were drafted. Some commentators have gone so far as to question whether states so frequently ignore neutrality obligations that the treaties have fallen into a state of obsolescence and are no longer binding. The International Court of Justice has not directly addressed the customary status of these treaties, but it did state in an advisory opinion that “the principle of neutrality, whatever its content, … is of a fundamental character” that applies in all international armed conflicts.
Uh-huh.
The Eagle didn’t invade the USSR, either. Communist China, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Eithiopia, Nicaragua, Venizuala... All got lethal aid from the Soviet’s to actually or potentially kill Americans.
Those who fail to learn from history will be forced to repeat it.
How many wars are you claiming that the United States and Russia have been in against each other?
And how did the rest of the world miss them?
May it be so!
from your lips to God's ears.....
I'm sure that you are joined in prayer by the board of directors at Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman,General Atomics, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Textron ...as well as every senator/congressman/ executive branch employee and their families who are "advising", "consulting" or members of the board of directors for Ukrainian energy companies as well as import/export services...
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.