Submitted by sviterochec t3_zwg08l in worldnews
Shuber-Fuber t1_j1uvqxa wrote
Reply to comment by Gorge_Lorge in Ukraine lessens projected GDP fall from 50% to 32% by sviterochec
Mostly military thou, doesn't help the economy outside of stopping Russia from causing more damage.
Gorge_Lorge t1_j1v1bgv wrote
Oh yeah, I get that. Crazy amount of money comparatively was all. Got curious about their gdp a few weeks ago. Then went down a rabbit hole of how gdp is calculated….ahhh the internet.
Shuber-Fuber t1_j1v6t9z wrote
Another crazy part is that a vast majority of that "crazy amount of money" doesn't cost the US in the traditional sense.
Think of donating old clothes to Goodwill, that's essentially what a lot of US donations are, stuff we don't actually need and would've pay to dismantle/dispose of in some way anyway a few years down the line.
And a lot of newer stuff is in manufacturing sector that the US would've paid for anyway for other purposes to keep them operating. We paid for Abrams tanks that the Army specifically said they don't need more of just to keep the production lines running. So a lot of stuff we gave to Ukraine could be chalk up to "stuff we would've paid for anyway for other reasons". Russia's invasion just gives the US a better reason than "we need to keep MIC operating".
puroloco t1_j1vb3nf wrote
It's crazy we don't give them tanks. Thanks that they have built and we don't need.
Sarkelias t1_j1vbttk wrote
We still might, but it'd be a total change in equipment for them - all of their practice, training, tooling and ammunition is for variants of Soviet tanks. US tanks would represent a total change in that and NATO countries would have to supply all of the ammunition for them - I'd imagine that's why NATO countries like Poland have been dumping their T-72s into Ukraine, they were planning to get rid of them anyway and they're easier for UA to use.
tuigger t1_j1vky4j wrote
The current Abrams tank used by the US uses an extremely fuel demanding gas turbine engine which puts a big liability in the logistics chain.
It also requires a lot of training and different ammo/parts than what the Ukrainians produce/have.
The Ukrainians are better off without Abrams tanks.
Sarkelias t1_j1vn76x wrote
Yeah, the increased fuel consumption would probably also be an issue, plus a higher personnel requirement with 4 crew instead of 3 for the 64/72/80s. With that in mind, the best new armor for Ukraine would probably be K2s from SK/Poland, down the line - at least they'd have similar crew and fuel requirements.
Miraclefish t1_j1vbzfr wrote
They don't really need or want tanks, though. For the kind of fighting that's happening in Ukraine, they're mostly death traps.
What's more, US-built tanks aren't usable, they would need months to years of training and infrastructure for maintenance and servicing.
Besides, Russia has abandoned far more empty tanks than Ukraine has lost and they're Soviet models that Ukraine utilises anyway.
What they really need is longer range artillery and rockets, anti air defence systems and so on, which is what they're being given.
Successful_Prior_267 t1_j1vmv2j wrote
They are literally begging for tanks lmao
LAVATORR t1_j1vnujv wrote
Yeah, they also beg for fighter jets, but whether or not they're an optimal use of resources is a whole other question.
Way too many people think this is Civilization and you can just teleport in advanced tech for a quick and easy win. Real life is much more complicated.
Miraclefish t1_j1vwkke wrote
Yes, compatible ones that their armed forces are trained to operate and they have supply lines and servicing capability for.
That is categorically not NATO ones, but T- model tanks from other Eastern Bloc nations.
Roflcopter_Rego t1_j1vr9fp wrote
> They don't really need or want tanks, though. For the kind of fighting that's happening in Ukraine, they're mostly death traps.
This is honestly a bunch of crap. I'd be interested to know what has made you formulate this idea.
The way Russia used tanks for the first 3 months - YOLOing down highways with no intel or infantry - is obviously massively wasteful and not what Ukraine should be doing. Using tanks the way Russia is now, by hardening or attacking trench formations, is very useful.
Ukraine want tanks, and having tanks would reduce casualties. You're right it's not top of the list, or even second or third (artillery is top of the list, missiles are second, AA is third) but it is certainly on the list.
Miraclefish t1_j1vwf7k wrote
Western tanks are of absolutely no use to them for countless logistical reasons, which is why they aren't being requested or offered by NATO nations.
Roflcopter_Rego t1_j1vwrov wrote
> For the kind of fighting that's happening in Ukraine, they're mostly death traps.
So this is untrue, yes?
The "correct" reason is in fact:
>Western tanks are of absolutely no use to them for countless logistical reasons
Do you want to edit your original post to clarify or...?
Miraclefish t1_j1vwwfi wrote
No, both are true and aren't mutually exclusive. Thanks for playing, bye.
Roflcopter_Rego t1_j1vx9ye wrote
Usually I'd blow it off, but honestly that rhetoric is dangerous if it becomes a common consensus. Please stop spreading unsourced misinformation, especially when you know the actual and correctly sourced information and post that also.
vba7 t1_j1vkw84 wrote
USA is nor sending money but military equipment. This sounds like some advanced propaganda.
Adam-West t1_j1v86a4 wrote
Wartime economy is an odd one anyway. Lots of stuff that counts towards GDP but doesn’t actually improve people’s lives in a normal context. Like theoretically you could have a great GDP based off the production of military equipment but you spend it all on the front lines and don’t have enough leftover for food.
Sinaaaa t1_j1v96uc wrote
> GDP but doesn’t actually improve people’s lives in a normal context.
That's just how GDP is in general.
Adam-West t1_j1v9dzd wrote
Yeah but we use it as a metric like this is under the assumption that as a whole higher GDP = Higher quality of life even though it’s far from perfect
adashko997 t1_j1vbpvk wrote
Honestly I don't see that very often. Except for some comments on a Reddit thread some time ago about California breaking yet another nominal GDP record taking this as proof that the state is a fantastic place to live even though GDP doesn't mean shit in this context.
Redpanther14 t1_j1v5ldx wrote
Actually, most US aid has been economic aid in the form of relatively low-interest loans IIRC.
GoodAndHardWorking t1_j1v6u2s wrote
Are the loans not earmarked to go right back to US defense contractors?
Redpanther14 t1_j1v7f62 wrote
No, western countries have been providing billions of dollars of loans to Ukraine each month to make sure that the country doesn’t completely fall apart. Most weapons provided to Ukraine by the US have been drawdowns of government stocks (which I doubt repayment for is expected, although I do not know the finer details).
patrick66 t1_j1v9i6t wrote
Nah they’re true loans. When we give other countries money to buy weapons from us it’s almost exclusively grant money not loans, but for obvious reasons we aren’t even doing that step here. mostly the us is largely just dealing with the contractors directly
IronEngineer t1_j1v9zmj wrote
A large amount is not. Despite the meme that the USis only supporting the defense industry, they are doing a lot to help Ukraine through this. True economic and humanitarian aid has come in large numbers.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments