I read PK’s column today, and I’m not sure I completely agree with him, as he is stepping well outside of his area of expertise.
Only $77 billion? As I understand it, the ‘value’ of US military assistance to Ukraine is more or less whatever the Pentagon says it is. If the Pentagon’s accountants value a Bradley at replacement cost, depreciated cost, or scrap metal cost is very much a discretionary matter, and in practice seems to depend on how much Presidential drawdown remains at any particular time.
But that to one side, the principal issue isn’t really whether the budget can handle the additional monetary costs, which clearly it can, but rather that in terms of matériel, the cupboard, sadly, is bare, and further gifts, loans, guarantees and donations will have an increasingly negative impact on the national security of the United States.
i think we can agree on the 5% number, or thereabouts, but u have a good point about the pentagon and their accounting system. i haven't seen the last audit. as a matter of fact, i don't think dod annual audits are available, at least not publicly. if the cupboard is bare, then dod should allocate more money to fill it up. pk's argument that some maga republicans have the knives out 4 ua is also used by tn @theatlantic. ak's note to elon in bloomberg about why it's more than "worth it" to fund ukraine in its genocidal campaign is convincing. ret. gen hodges has said the same thing, over and over again, since russia's all-out invasion in february. if there's not enough of something, commission the production of more of it, so there is. it's money well spent
Thanks for this article.
I read PK’s column today, and I’m not sure I completely agree with him, as he is stepping well outside of his area of expertise.
Only $77 billion? As I understand it, the ‘value’ of US military assistance to Ukraine is more or less whatever the Pentagon says it is. If the Pentagon’s accountants value a Bradley at replacement cost, depreciated cost, or scrap metal cost is very much a discretionary matter, and in practice seems to depend on how much Presidential drawdown remains at any particular time.
But that to one side, the principal issue isn’t really whether the budget can handle the additional monetary costs, which clearly it can, but rather that in terms of matériel, the cupboard, sadly, is bare, and further gifts, loans, guarantees and donations will have an increasingly negative impact on the national security of the United States.
i think we can agree on the 5% number, or thereabouts, but u have a good point about the pentagon and their accounting system. i haven't seen the last audit. as a matter of fact, i don't think dod annual audits are available, at least not publicly. if the cupboard is bare, then dod should allocate more money to fill it up. pk's argument that some maga republicans have the knives out 4 ua is also used by tn @theatlantic. ak's note to elon in bloomberg about why it's more than "worth it" to fund ukraine in its genocidal campaign is convincing. ret. gen hodges has said the same thing, over and over again, since russia's all-out invasion in february. if there's not enough of something, commission the production of more of it, so there is. it's money well spent