• cloud_herder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Pffftft get bent. Providing military gear to Ukraine that was destined to be disposed of for reaching its end of life by sitting on a shelf doesn’t really cost the US much, other than on an accounting ledger. It’s either on the balance sheet as “N number of ATACMS valued at $X were disposed of for $Z (cost of disposal)” or “N number of ATACMS valued at $X were provided to Ukraine at a cost of $W (cost of shipping)”. Which end up being roughly the same.

      Regardless the munitions are gone and off the books. Both outcomes mean US arms producers get to make more missiles — which is money spent within the US on US jobs.

      So, who gives a shit? Let Ukraine defend themselves while Russia expends money and soldiers. Ya Muppet.

      • NimdaQA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        Think of it however you want, someone else here stated that freezing it is just means that all that aid goes into Trump’s pockets instead which is certainly a good argument for unfreezing this aid and sending it into Ukraine anyways even if it won’t achieve much in the end.

        Personally I think it is smarter if Europe keeps their stockpiles in country and prepare for a future war with Russia and the American aid gets sent to NATO allies instead.