Replies

“So, it’s worth noticing again that most or all of the military hardware delivered so far is said to be surplus or obsolete pending scrap, and that the values listed as shipped to Ukraine were actually our own costs to replace such obsolete hardware with our latest technical upgrades.
So, the actual values of equipment Ukraine received were far less than the amounts in our budgets.”

Whose idea was it to make our aid to Ukraine look more valuable than it really is by claiming replacement cost for items that were obsolete or even required to be deactivated? I remember the fuss over the cluster munitions we were give Ukraine. These were scheduled for deactivation/dismanteling very soon, which would have cost our Defense Department additional money. Now they are being used to defend Ukraine, in the manner originally intended by us.

So we have gotten rid of something we had to get rid of anyway, and we don’t even have to pay someone to deactivate them for us. There would be shipping costs. So what will we spend to replace these weapons, and how much would we have paid for the deactivations process? All those figures should immediately be calculated and this amount deducted from the so called dollar value of our aid to Ukraine. The same should be done for all the other weapons and military materiel being sent to Ukraine.

Fair accounting should include some of the following factors.

1. True value of old or soon to be scrapped military supplies. Deduction

2. Value of cost to scrap materials. Deduction

3. Cost of shipping materials. Addition

4. Money saved on storage, security, etc. in buildings and on land. Deduction

5. I’m sure the active minds of FReepers can think of items to add to this list.

Then I have another question. We are paying interest on our military debt. Are we paying interest on the “like new” value of what we sending to Ukraine. If that is the case then we are probably making some bankers even richer than they already were. Companies like Goldman Sachs come to mind who have had high officers working closely with past administrations.

Are we taxpayers subsidizing a double rip-off, and blaming Ukraine for it? In fact, this analysis should be done for all our military material gifts. Bottom line—no “like new” charges for what we plan to replace anyway, and no interest paid on phony inflated valuation levels.

gleeaikin: "Whose idea was it to make our aid to Ukraine look more valuable than it really is by claiming replacement cost for items that were obsolete or even required to be deactivated?"

I'm no politician, never served in Washington, DC, (except one summer many years ago as a guard at the Library of Congress ;-) ), but I can guess it's something like this:

When active-duty weapons and equipment are replaced, they go first to reserve units, which then send their own old equipment into storage inventories, for use in future contingencies.
Some of these old stocks can be held indefinitely -- one thinks of Ma Deuce, first introduced in 1933 but still beloved by Old School NCOs.
Others can be obsoleted by new technology or by materials expiration dates, such as explosive chemicals.

So, laws passed by Congress authorize money spent to replace nearly-obsolete or expired stocks with latest versions, and at the same time, Congress authorized shipment of the old stocks to help Ukraine.
The value of "aid to Ukraine" is set at the cost of replacing those old stocks, not the true value of the stocks themselves.

How much were those old stocks shipped to Ukraine actually worth?
Well, that's a huge question, which can become almost philosophical, if you think about it.
Worth to whom?

Worth to us?
Almost nothing, we were going to scrap them in a few years anyway.
Worth on the open arms market to legitimate allies like, for examples, Taiwan or the Philippines?
Maybe one-third the cost of a brand new one.
So, if a brand new Abrams tank costs maybe $6 million, they might be willing to pay $2 million for an older version.
Worth to Ukrainians in the thick of their desperate fight for national existence?
Priceless.

gleeaikin: "Then I have another question.
We are paying interest on our military debt.
Are we paying interest on the “like new” value of what we sending to Ukraine.
If that is the case then we are probably making some bankers even richer than they already were."

No need for you to get all excited about bankers, they are only ever doing their jobs.
If anyone is to blame, look to your congress-critters.

Still, the answer to your question here is quite simple -- any debts incurred go to pay the costs of building new equipment to replace old-obsolete inventories shipped to Ukraine.
The US does not lose value on these transactions.

gleeaikin: "Are we taxpayers subsidizing a double rip-off, and blaming Ukraine for it?
In fact, this analysis should be done for all our military material gifts.
Bottom line—no “like new” charges for what we plan to replace anyway, and no interest paid on phony inflated valuation levels."

Sorry, but no, because you are missing something critical here.
Our costs for replacing obsolete inventories with newer stuff, those are real costs, which we would not spend right now, but would have scheduled for future years.
So, it is still fair to call that money "aid to Ukraine", even though actual funds expended go for our own stocks, not Ukraine's.

Consider, if we put any other value on equipment shipped to Ukraine, then we'd by lying to ourselves about how much it really costs us to support Ukraine.

The real issue here is that Speaker Johnson wants to strike a bargain with the administration, granting more aid to Ukraine in exchange for the Republican border plan.
But the problem might be that when push comes to shove, Democrats care more about keeping the Southern Border open for millions more immigrants than they do about helping Ukrainians keep Vlad the Invader's army out of Ukraine.