"likes =/= endorsement" perhaps there's some disconnect. I'm referring to the $200b figure. I interpreted your post as calling that figure "a vicious lie," which seemed an overreaction. were you referring to something else?
Your own link made clear you read it wrong. $113B is the full total that has been authorized for all types of aid (military and otherwise) - not all of it has been spent/used and it wasn't all spent in 2022 alone. It's used over time and some is not expected to be sent until 2026 or longer: Of the $113 billion approved in 2022, about three-fifths ($67 billion) has been allocated toward defense needs and the remaining two-fifths ($46 billion) to nondefense concerns such as general Ukrainian government aid, economic support, and aid for refugee resettlement. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided cost estimates of the four funding packages at the time each was passed. In total, CBO estimated that $6.6 billion of the $113 billion would be spent in FY 2022 and another $37.7 billion in FY 2023. Furthermore, CBO estimated more than half of the approved funds would be spent by the end of FY 2024 and more than three-fourths by the end of FY 2026.
Correct. The problem is with the politicians/leaders, not the individual citizens. It bothers me when people are celebrating the thousands of Russian deaths, people who are forced into this war and do not wish to be part of it.
The numbers $200B, $100B, $50B, $20B are a red herring. If you're in the Tucker Carlson wing, even $1 is too much. If you're against supporting Ukraine, $1 is too much. However, if you want to seriously weigh the financial cost of this war against what we get in return, it has been an amazing success. The US has spent around $1.9T (FY23) on defense spending, of which only $67B has been allocated to Ukraine for defense (the rest has been for humanitarian and economic aid). This amounts to only 3.5% of our defense spending, yet it has helped push back Putin's aggression and essentially cripple Russia's military. It's hard to think of a better return on military spending.
Doubt it. Belarus is a firm puppet state, but the government won't want to give up the 'power' they have.
First presidential visit to a war zone not controlled by the US military. Riskiest trip by a modern president rivalled only by FDR's trans-Atlantic crossings during WWII. The logistics, security and planning had to be immense. I'm not sure it was a wise move, but it was bold and definitely sent a message to Ukrainians, Putin, and our allies. I'm kind of gobsmacked this happened.
Yeah there were cruise missles flying into Tehran at that time weren't there? From my memory there were a bunch of 10k suicide drones looking to destroy anything in its sight right?
Kamala is a war monger. She would approve fighter jets and whatever zelensky wants in seconds. She has no experience in dealing with foreign policy. Putin doesn't want Biden dead and the last thing he wants is kamala as POTUS. Whats dangerous what biden did was trusting the Ukrainians army knowing the price on his head.
