Update from Ukraine | One of the Worst days for the Ruzzian Army | All Failed | Crazy Tactics

Youtube.com ^ | 12-28-2023 | Denys Davydov

[UMCRevMom@aol.com]

ARTICLE

Ukrainians donated UAH 27.4 billion (US$721.05 million) hryvnias through monobank in 2023, whereas in 2022, this amount was UAH 8.5 billion (US$223.68 million).
Urainska Pravda
Saturday, 30 December 2023, 14:45
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/12/30/7435215/

SOURCE: Ukrainian online bank monobank on X (Twitter).

Statistics show that in 2023, donations increased to UAH 27.4 billion, compared to UAH 8.5 billion the previous year. The number of donors in 2023 reached 5.4 million, compared to 3 million in 2022. The average size of one-time donation also increased. In 2022, it was UAH 258 (almost US$6.8), while in 2023, it rose to UAH 349 (roughly US$9.2).

BACKGROUND:

-In December, the funds raised by the state fundraising program United24 surpassed the mark of US$500 million.

-From January to September, the three largest Ukrainian funds collected UAH 12.5 billion in donations, with the largest amount coming from the United24 fundraising platform.

[griffin]

“You are more than welcome to listen only to senile Joes western MSM”

What an excellent synopsis of my condition. You are so spot on. gud jub! LOL!

[griffin]

Im focused on the spam copy/paste bot propaganda. Utterly useless and false. Just an abuse of the forum. Sad to see.

[griffin]

ROTFLMAO!!!!

SOOOOO much self-delusion!!! Oh my gosh...its like a Hallmark movie!! Or a teenage boy thinking its a girl.

"Glory to the nazipedo state"!

Yeah...you're ‘helping’.....LOL!!!

[griffin]

“Front lines”, eh?
REALLY?

OMGosh...you people are REALLY self-deluded.

BroJoke and spambotrevmom....saviors of the european pedo bowelmovement.

[rxh4n1]

’ They don’t need us anymore.’

yeah, they do. that is why i am here.”

Good on ya. Not my kids so step off.

[BroJoeK]

Prince of Space #84: "It’s interesting that the “ministry of defense” in Ukraine can somehow analyze the data and determine the losses and casualties Russia has suffered but can’t seem to figure out how many Ukrainian soldiers and equipment they’ve lost."

Russians don't report their own casualties and Russians estimate Ukraine's casualties at around 400,000 so far.
Ukrainians don't report their own casualties and estimate Russian killed or seriously wounded at around 350,000 so far.

US intelligence estimates put Russian casualties, total to date, at 315,000 in December.
The UK puts Russian casualties at circa 350,000.

Estimates of Ukrainian casualties run in the 200,000 range.

It's worth remembering here that Russia's population is around 145 million (75% ethnic Russians), Ukraine's maybe 40 million (80% ethnic Ukrainians).

As for numbers of various nations' equipment on hand and lost in Ukraine, those are said to be well known by Pentagon and other US government officials.
Whether making such numbers public would benefit Ukraine's war effort is at least debatable.

bimboeruption #84: "The American people don’t know how much money we’ve poured into Zelensky’s corrupt little paradise or where the equipment we’ve sent to him has gone."

Those numbers can depend on who is counting and how, exactly, they count.
The top line number is usually put at $113 billion total authorized over two years, of which roughly half is through the Pentagon ($62 billion) and the rest through mostly the State Department ($51 billion).
The appropriation requested by the Biden administration for 2024 is another circa $60 billion.

How much of that was actually delivered, we are not told, though it's often implied that the current authorizations are now nearly all used up.

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.

As for alleged Ukrainian corruption, by all objective measures it is vastly less than Russian corruption, and has improved significantly in the past 20 years, though Ukraine still has a way to go before it can meet European Union minimum standards in such matters.

Turns out that all reports of alleged Zelenskyy yachts and foreign homes are pure Russian propaganda, however Russia's Vlad the Invader is himself reported as one of the world's wealthiest men, worth $70 billion, with many reported yachts, including this one:
Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy's wealth is estimated at $30 million, of which 75% is in the value of his TV production company, which produced the Ukrainian hit TV series, "Servant of the People" from 2015 to 2019.

One of Vlad the Invader's yachts, worth $700 million, in Italy:

[BroJoeK]

Prince of Space: "How about “we don’t really care” about this war?
We just want our govt to stop sending billions of our taxpayer dollars to a foreign country that a mere 5 yrs ago was called “the most corrupt country in Europe.”"

Only by Russians, who themselves have long held that title.

According to this accounting, Russia first gained the title of "Europe's most corrupt" back in 1996 and has held it almost every year since, with occasional competition from Albania, Georgia and Ukraine.
At the time of Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine, Russia and Ukraine were tied at 146th of 184 ranked countries in the world and also tied as the most corrupt in Europe.

But ever since 2016, Russia has been the sole title holder and champion of "Most Corrupt" as 137th of 180 worldwide and last among all European countries, hands down.
Russia's raw score has not improved since 2002.

Countries by corruption: green/yellow = less corrupt, orange/red most corrupt

Prince of Space: "We’re already borrowing billions of dollars and still have trouble providing for the homeless or veterans or senior citizens in our own country.
We simply cannot continue to provide weapons and aid for Ukraine and still provide for our own ppl.
Why is that so hard for Zeepers to understand?"

Because those are complete lies and nonsense.
The truth is that every fault you decry in the United States is a feature not a failure of our Democrat administrations' policies.

All of those issues could be managed quickly and easily if our administration wanted to, but they don't, and we can discuss why if you wish, but I think you already know the reasons.

US aid to Ukraine is not in competition with money for any of those other worthy projects, and would not go towards those projects even if Ukraine is 100% eliminated from the budget today.

So, it is a false choice, a false dichotomy, to say that we must either help fund Ukraine or our own veteran homeless.
The fact is that we could easily do both if we wanted to, but our Democrat administrations, for whatever their reasons, just don't.

[BroJoeK]

rxh4n1 to BabaOReally: "They don’t need us anymore."

BabaOReally: "yeah, they do. that is why i am here."

rxh4n1 to BabaOReally: "Good on ya. Not my kids so step off."

Nobody has asked your kids to fight in Ukraine, so why are you hallucinating about that?

[gleeaikin]

“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.

[MeganC]

Exceptional post!

[rxh4n1]

Nobody has asked your kids to fight in Ukraine, so why are you hallucinating about that?

You’re right. Not yet. They’re getting ready.

[gleeaikin]

Two of my grandsons enlisted in the US Army this past year, so I definitely feel as if I have skin in the game. So I will definitely continue to post my factual “propaganda” or questions for others to look into or respond to. Does anyone have a list of what other countries we give military aid to and charge full, as new price, for obsolete or soon to be destroyed/recycled weapons/equipment? I suspect there are some in the Middle East as well as Asia.

[BroJoeK]

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?

1. Worth to us?
   Almost nothing, we were going to scrap them in a few years anyway.

2. 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.

3. 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.

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "Nobody has asked your kids to fight in Ukraine, so why are you hallucinating about that?"

rxh4n1: "You’re right. Not yet. They’re getting ready."

Can you quote somebody in authority who has said as much?

[ought-six]

My nephew is in the US Army and is “over there” somewhere. I know at one time he was in Poland; he may still be.

[BroJoeK]

griffin: "Im focused on the spam copy/paste bot propaganda.
Utterly useless and false.
Just an abuse of the forum.
Sad to see."

As opposed to what? Russian bot propaganda which you consider to be truthful and useful and a great value to Free Republic's platform?

You do realize, of course, that you are 100% entitled to ignore threads & posts which you find upsetting, right?

[BroJoeK]

griffin: "OMGosh...you people are REALLY self-deluded.
BroJoke and spambotrevmom....saviors of the european pedo bowelmovement."

Really? Why are you here driving yourself crazy when you have no real clue what you're talking about?

Seriously, give it a rest.
This whole conversation is obviously well beyond your mental abilities to comprehend or respond appropriately to.

You should find another hobby, FRiend, because all you're doing is babbling nonsense here.

[2CAVTrooper]

“Bottom line—no “like new” charges for what we plan to replace anyway,”

My understanding is that some of these costs are just to bring the vehicles back up to operational standard after being mothballed for several years.

Fresh fluids and filters, new batteries, hoses, tracks, and fixing of any noted deficiencies that would otherwise make the vehicles non-mission capable.

[gleeaikin]

The regab costs could be included in Item #3 as an addition in my comment #110, or given their own number as an addition. The important question is whether these rehab costs added to the salvage value of the war materials would be as high as the “new production” costs? In fact I wonder if these rehab costs are being added to the “as new” costs making the rehab items even more expensive than new items?