Although I know it makes absolutely no difference for those for whom the propaganda advances the narrative…
The “accounting” errors have to do with using the cost of a brand-new system to replace the one being drawn down. Many of these draw down weapon systems will not be replaced; they have run their life cycle and new weapon systems will be and already have been budgeted to replace them. Giving Ukraine ATACMS for example means nothing, ATACMS has been shelved, the ones we have were already slated to be replaced with PRSM. We were never going to use the ATACMS and once the PRSM is deployed they would have either gone into long term storage never to be deployed or been scrapped altogether.
An old weapon system kept in storage may have cost 1M 20 years ago, but its replacement cost is zero when you’re not replacing it. Right now these systems are costing us money to maintain in storage. Giving them away saves us money. But according to the books, it shows as 1M in aid when it actually has no value to us.
That said, I have no issue with doing as Trump suggested and selling them to Ukraine with money we lend them that they can pay back later (if ever). The price would obviously have to be adjusted for age. Maybe 1/2 price. Of course, if we do sell them to them, we need to acknowledge that we no longer own them and have absolutely no say in how Ukraine uses their weapons.
Sometimes they are. Last year they audited me and told me that I had over reported my income by nearly $5000 and they sent me back about $1000. For the life of me, I could not figure out how they arrived at that conclusion.
Pictures have been released of the first F-16’s in Ukraine. They have been armed with AIM 120 A &B missiles. Max range 40-60km. These planes will not be used in air to air roles unless the objective is to get them shot out of the sky. They need the AIM 120 C & D models to compete with SU 30 and 35"s which have stronger nose cone radars and longer-range missiles. To be really effective they need to be used in conjunction with AWACS to extend target acquisition and take over missile guidance BVR.
Once again, making sure Ukraine has just enough to not lose, but not enough to win! Let’s go Brandon!
ETA: They really need to use these conservatively until they get the poor man’s AWACS the Swedes gave them flying and until they have amassed more of them. I think at present at most they have 6.
I think they intend to use them for CAP to shoot down incoming missiles. They will probably also make some stand off attacks along the front, but they aren’t going after the Russian fighters.
Yeah I know. And that means they add nothing really. A few more guns.
I understand that they do need to get the AWACS operational for extended range. But with the C or D model of AMRAM they could force the Russians to back up further and cut down on some of the glide bombs. But, good ol’ “just enough to not lose” Joe doesn’t want that. Stopping Russians from using FAB 1500’s could be escalatory… somehow.
Joe isn’t making, and hasn’t made, any decisions on anything for a long time. And we know Kamala isn’t making them either. And Sec Austin doesn’t have the chops for making them. Have to wonder just who is the puppet master.
Over the past 48hrs Ukraine has liberated multiple formerly Russian towns and Villages in the People’s Republic of Kursk (Formerly Russia). Penetrating up to 25km into the former Russian territories and liberating more territory in 48 hours than the monthly average for Russia over the last 3 months.
Yes, IRS accounting reviews occasionally go in the taxpayer’s favor.
On the other hand, the don’t expect that the US government will send you multiple multi-billion-dollar checks for accounting errors unless your last name is Zelensky.
Meanwhile Ukraine is defaulting on its debt to private creditors. Will creditors demand a share of the windfalls from Washington?
We are now 4 days into the liberation of Kursk and Ukraine has liberated more territory in the former Russian district than Russia has taken in Ukraine in the past 3 months.
how about if they’re giving away stuff that’s sitting in a warehouse, that we’re paying for, collecting dust, that will never be used? Is it worth saving the money you’re spending to maintain it to give it away?
That said, I will say it again. I agree with Trump, we should loan them the money to buy it from us. More of it, lot’s more, enough to win.
