https://www.voanews.com/a/us-pushin...ve-ukraine-quick-military-boost-/6927591.html Narrative: Give up all your Soviet era weapons to Ukraine as they are better trained to use them and in exchange, we will give you US weapons. Alternative Narrative: US wants to further monopolize its war machine. If these countries misbehave, US will simply cut them off from ammo and resupply, making these countries completely dependent on the US. Arms dealers hate competition.
Let’s not forget that Russia has invaded Ukraine. That seems to be forgotten often. All Russia has to do is turnaround and go home.
As opposed to those countries in our neighborhood currently being completely dependent on Russia. Only a Russia-devotee would see this as a bad thing.
If I'm a country not aligned with Russia or the US I would certainly want to trade old Soviet weapons for new US ones. Russia is in a war and is importing weapons and unlikely to sell more weapons or provide parts and maintenance for existing weapons systems they need. Further the Soviet weapons systems have shown on the battlefield they are outdated and not as effective. If the US is willing to replace those systems with more modern US systems and canprovide parts and maintenance it seems like in the best interests of my country to go with the US.
Some of these folks have their brains utterly rotten. Everything is about the military establishment and conspiracies. These clueless hacks cant grasp the idea russia is invading a neighbor and breaking every international norm. Trading in 70s style Russian weapons in exchange for modern weapons somehow means were trying to corrupt them. These Russian bootlickers are so utterly pathetic @Space Ghost
Well it is about the money, but it is also good for our country in this instance. If old Pooty doesn't like it, he can leave the Ukraine and stop it. He is in control. DD
All of us who have no financial investment in war wants Russia to leave. Unfortunately we both acknowledge this will not happen under Putin.
@astros123 I know you're a smart guy, but lets think about this logic for a moment. If I am a commander and I am at war, which do you think I would prefer? Outdated weaponry that my opponent uses or new weaponry? Under what twisted logic would anyone send modern weapons to country's not in war in exchange for outdated weapons? This isn't Call of Duty, dude. Peoples are dying left and right and somehow you think it makes sense to give outdated weapons to your 'allies'. I understand its not your community in war so its easy not to be critical of your bias.
If the United States offered to take the weapons in exchange for American weapons, I completely understand. But please, defend the position of sending outdated weapons to your ally instead of modern weaponry. Or is it easier to hop over to thoughtless childish emotional responses like "Russian bootlicker" or "Russia-devotee". Not every country wants to be subservient to the United States. Its their choice. Im not so arrogant to believe I know whats best for everyone.
Every single American has a financial investment in Russia war. We all pay taxes. Forget the bs noise and military bs. Look at it strictly from a business POV. We are getting hundreds of billions of investment in NON defense "military establishment" contracts. We building out new LNG terminals in Texas just to export lng Europe We have the EU dependent on America for energy forever now. Do you realize the strategic importance of that? We can leverage that power with the EU to help push them on China policy. Forget the bs military stuff happening and look at the war as a strict business operation. The amount of long term investments and capital flow that will be flowing into America for decades to come will be 100% worth it. We will get a 20x return on our investment. This war is a great investment for America. Period.
That wasn't your original argument. You were arguing that this was about US arms sellers getting market advantage. You're opposed the US sending more arms to Ukraine including modern US tanks so now it's about being concerned about Ukrainains getting old weapons? To answer your question directly though. It's because Ukrainians don't need to be retrained on those weapon systems and given that the war is happening these weapons can be used immediately. With things like the Abrams it will take months to train Ukrainians to use them. They are far more effective so in the long run it will be a benefit. In the meantime fighting is still happening so Ukrainians need weapons they can use right now.
We shouldn't be bullying countries into decisions. We did that with the Middle East for almost a century. How is that going? A couple years ago the narrative was 'A Green New Deal'. Now its 'EU is now dependent on the US for LNG forever now'. LNG is a pollutant. Its a short term solution, not a forever solution. Its amazing how some of you Democrats have moved from anti-greenhouse energy to 'its the future'. Im so happy you and yours are getting wealthy off of people dying.
To be clear, I am opposed to a long-term conflict that results millions of deaths and another trillion or two of debt. If sending Ukraine a few billion dollars and advanced weaponry to drive Russia out in 6 months, then that is great. I do not believe that will happen which is why I am against being involved in the war. My original argument was about the absurdity of s. American countries sending obsolete weapons to Ukraine in exchange for new weapons. Before: After:
Why are you so disingenuous seriously? Trump to his credit tried to warn germany about Russian energy. How is it bidens fault that EU was importing 70% of their energy from russia pre war? There's no responsibility no more? The ONLY reason Europe isn't freezing right now is *because* our LNG exports to Europe. This is one of the most rarest moments in history where something is *morale* and *a great investment* for America. By the way if you search my posts I have bashed Obama for surging troops in Afghanistan and bashed trump for his escalation in air strikes. I'm as anti war as anyone but this about defending a invaded nation. You can't be anti imperialist and be okay with what Russia is doing. You'll grow up one day.
The advantage is that (1) Ukraine is very familiar with Russian weaponry and can use it immediately, (2) the US can more easily get additional arms sales to western friendly countries approved through Congress, and (3) it helps strengthen our interests locally. This isn't an either-or situation. We are also sending western weaponry directly, but that's going to take a few months for training. And we only have so much of it, so facilitating future arms sales is another of the many routes we are can use in parallel. It certainly is when dealing someone who has no understanding of anything he's talking about and repeatedly keeps posting that we should do things that are in Russia's best interests. It's not hard to connect the dots when someone repeatedly says stupid things. Yet you do seem fine thinking its cool that they want to be subservient to Russia. And that they'd be opposed to having more modern state-of-the-art western arms.
The right answer for the commander would be "both". Ukraine wants anything and everything it can get. Outdated weapons today are important. Modern weapons tomorrow are important. I mean, did you even read the article that you yourself posted that talks about the benefits to Ukraine having both? And the US working to do both? You can be your stupid self and still understand all of this if you just read your own article instead of running here to post it with your own agenda. Here's some highlights of things you didn't read: The latest round of military assistance packages for Ukraine, including billions of dollars' worth of Western-made armored vehicles and air- defense systems, is not stopping the United States from also trying to get the Ukrainian military Russian-made equipment. ... Other top U.S. officials have hinted at the importance of providing Russian-made equipment that is already familiar to Ukrainian troops, cautioning that it may not be possible to fully train Kyiv’s forces on the new Western systems in time to counter possible Russian offensives in the coming months. “That'll be a very, very heavy lift,” General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday after a meeting of the Ukraine Contact Group at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. “The Ukrainians have the personnel, but they have to be trained,” he said. “And if you look at the weather and terrain, et cetera, you can see that you have a relatively short window of time to accomplish both those key tasks. ... In contrast, Russian-made weapon systems currently being used in Central and South America could be used by the Ukrainian military almost immediately. And some countries have significant stockpiles. ... “Countries like Brazil and Ecuador operate hundreds of Russian Igla portable surface-to-air missiles, with Brazil in particular having received modern Igla-S systems since 2010,” Henry Ziemer, a program coordinator and research assistant at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told VOA by email. “MANPADS, especially older Igla-1 models which, while less effective, are easier to part with and fairly plentiful within the hemisphere,” he said. “Ukrainian forces … are well-trained by now on both the Igla and U.S. Stinger systems, and their compactness and mobility makes these systems vital for sustaining combined-arms offensives.” ... You might also have missed the part about why those countries might be inteested in making the switch instead of it being forced on them by the oppressive USA: “Typically, Russia's advantage in the arms export markets was that they're significantly cheaper, faster delivery timelines and they don't care how countries use them,” Brobst said. “However, given the fact that Russia has lost a huge amount of equipment in Ukraine and needs to resupply their own forces, it’s going to be very hard for them to offer arms for exports. “This is an opportunity for the United States to peel away these countries from reliance on Russian weapon systems.”
So now you have a NEW original argument. Meanwhile, you’re also harping on Bush’s insane invasion of Iraq, which you keep conflating with Afghanistan, a war that DIDN’T cost us trillions. Bush’s war destabilized the Middle East and what he was responsible for continues to do so. That’s what cost us well over a trillion dollars and had us with a huge military presence, cost American lives and combat injuries, as well as over 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives, all thanks to Bush’s mad decision to overthrow Saddam. Saddam, who had no “weapons of mass destruction.” What we are doing in Ukraine is not remotely like what Bush did in Iraq OR Afghanistan. We and our allies are helping Ukraine by both giving them Soviet era weapons that they know how to use and have spare parts for, AND modern weapons, like the HIMARS missile system with a range greater than Russian artillery, that the Ukrainians have no problem using. Weapons that they are using to systematically destroy Russia’s military, which is definitely a huge help to Ukraine, saving Ukrainian lives, AND weakening a major threat to Europe. The countries of Eastern Europe, who spent 70 years occupied by the Soviet (Russian) military, who violently crushed any attempt to gain their freedom, know exactly what Russia is doing to Ukraine. They understand what you obviously do not, and they have not only been eager to send arms to Ukraine, they’ve been doing it. The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and others have been sending a wide variety of arms and other assistance on their own dime. You understand none of this. You imagine a fantasy you cling to and ignore reality. It’s pretty weird.
So your argument is that we shouldn’t be sending any weapons at all to Ukraine rather than any actual concern for Ukraine using outdated weapons. Yes they are outdated and less effective doesn’t mean they can’t be used now. A stick shift car is outdated but if I need to drive to work and I need to save for a car with an automatic transmission I should still drive the stick shift until I can get a new car.
