this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
674 points (98.6% liked)

World News

38278 readers
2540 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Most of what we're sending isn't money, it's assets. Assets that were constructed to fight China and Russia at the same time if needed. They were literally built and maintained in waiting for a fight with Russia. Sending them to make Russia weaker lowers the stockpile we need to maintain. The number of dollars sent over isn't real dollars, it's the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced). We were literally spending money to keep them ready in case they were needed, and now they're needed and we no longer have to spend money on them.

We are spending some new money on aid and things, but most of the military stuff is stuff we already had kicking around, not new spending to build new stuff to send over. Also, sure we'll have to replace some, but we would anyway as technology advances, and it also won't be to the same level as Russia is weaker.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced).

Arguably much of it should be valued at negative monetary value as with Ukraine taking it the US won't have to pay to decommission it. Especially ammunition gets expensive (tanks you can just dump in a desert somewhere).

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets.

Err... what? Who paid for those 'assets'? Those 'assets' can't be liquidated for capital?

Lol, 35 upvotes. Man, this next generation sucks. Not a critical thinker among you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

No, the assets can't really just be liquidated for capital. They're military equipment, and they've lost value over time anyway so the real value is less than the listed price. What can be done is giving them to another country for promises in the future.