$175 billion spent, zero results. What should we have expected?

Photo above - US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives in Saudi Arabia for Russian peace talks. He is apparently receiving tips from renowned assassin and oppressor crown prince MBS.

I can just see Elon Musk rolling his eyes now. “We spent HOW much? $175 billion!!?? And we have nothing to show for it? Pull the plug . . .”

That $175 billion of course is the total US aid sent to Ukraine so far. To save the nation from Russian invasion and atrocities. Military aid, humanitarian aid, the whole ball of wax. Russia may have spent less on it’s invasion, in terms of rubles (they used outdated legacy weapons and cheap Iranian drones) but has lost hundreds of thousands of men – soldiers, forced conscripts, prisoners on parole, malnourished North Korean dwarves . . .

The progressive press is apoplectic: “How can we abandon Ukraine at a time like this?” How, indeed?
There were only a couple of ways this war could have ended:

- Russia wins in the first 2 weeks, like the Pentagon advised Biden. To everyone's surprise, Ukranian troops and generals proved smarter and more motivated than Putin’s invaders.

- NATO enters the conflict. Either by enforcing a no-fly zone, or activating ground troops. Europe vetoed this because Putin kept going on TV and promising to nuke various nation's capitols. The Biden administration had no maneuvering room and refused to call Putin’s bluff on its own.

- A negotiated settlement, which ratifies the real estate captured at that point in time, and allows Putin to save face, while giving him time to re-arm. This is where we are today.

It’s okay to blame Trump for tossing Hegseth and Rubio into the furnace before they even unpacked. But please recognize that negotiations were Biden's 2025 plan all along. Keep Ukraine out of the news until after re-election, then begin negotiations to decide which flag stays where. If you’re not going to use NATO, or send in US troops unilaterally, it’s your only option. You can't keep spending hundreds of billions forever. The US public is war weary. And unlike war weary Russians, we get to vote about things we don't like.

So yes, Putin wins. If you have another solution, please post it below. In the meantime, let’s move along, shall we?

I dismiss the bluster of French President Macron, who threatened to send French troops to Kiev. This is the guy who was flummoxed by a few dozen striking railroad workers.

Germany is a joke. They're still buying Russian oil and natural gas, keeping Putin’s murderous dream alive. And at the same time wringing their hands and bemoaning the atrocities.

England isn’t going to do anything unless the US does. They only have 10% of US troop strength and only spend 10% as much on their military. And England, Germany and France are all behind on their NATO dues. Besides the USA, only Greece and Poland are up to date. Poland shares a border with Ukraine, and is watching this thing play out nervously.

Defense Secretary Hegseth is a disaster so far. Rubio seems a bit more polished and astute. I don’t buy the notion that Russian negotiators are “experts” who will eat him for lunch. However, I certainly DO buy the notion that Russians are ruthless thugs who don’t care how many people die. That is their secret negotiating power. "Look !!! We just crashed a drone into the Chernobyl containment dome! Bwaaah . . . you're all gonna die!"

I find it both hilarious and deplorable that PBS, CNN and other mainstream media are now screeching in anguish over negotiations. They would have been cheering if this was Biden. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. And those pundit probably couldn’t even figure out the 3 ways this war could end, so they’re morons too.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

How Much U.S. Aid Is Going to Ukraine? | Council on Foreign Relations

US, Russia wrap first Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia. Europe sidelined

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Avectoijesuismoi · 36-40

To answer some of it
If a country is buying aviation fuel from India it is buying Russian oil repackaged as with a good few Indian manufactured petroleum products

India is breaking no rules they are part of BRICS so the sanctions don't apply and they also have been ignoring the Price Cap that was supposed to be imposed on Russian Oil

There were exemptions granted to Hungary and Slovakia as far as Russian Gas and oil went as it is the only way they can get it, but further to this it was a trade off because for the EU to give any aid they all need to agree and say yes if just one abstains or says NO it cannot happen, the Ukraine turned off the pipeline that actually goes through the Ukraine itself and Slovakia and Hungary threatened them that they would block all EU aid until they turned it back on

The Russian Military equipment is not outdated or legacy at all, yes they have fired a lot of very ancient stuff at the Ukraine but that is a deliberate ploy as is using the cheap Iranian drones as the bulk while they fire a few good ones at he same time .
Because this causes the Ukraine to use lots of the nice expensive Patriots and other nice expensive air defence missiles to knock them down. With the Cheap Iranian drones about 20k but using a million dollar Missile to knock it down sooner or later it was going to get to the point where it was going to get too expensive to supply the expensive stuff and it also takes longer to assemble than a cheap mass manufactured drone with very basic components

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@Avectoijesuismoi the bulk of the Russian Airforce consists of SU27, MIG 27, and MIG 29 fighters. They were introduced in 1981-85, making them 40 years old.

Putin has only six MIG 35s (2019 vintage). It's Russia's "most advanced" jet but is only "4th generation" - with approximately the same capabilities of the US F16, introduced in 1976. Simulated dogfights show the F16 with superiority over the SU35.

Ukranian pilots are wildly happy to be getting formerly mothballed F16s. Russia has mostly kept its SU35s in their hangers since Ukranian pilots began training on F16s.

Avectoijesuismoi · 36-40

@SusanInFlorida I wouldn't give too much credit to the dogfight scenario most of that is computer generated and depending on which you view it gives one or the other the superiority, what it comes down to in real is the pilots skill and nerve.

Yes the F16 is a very good aircraft but which has been supplied to the Ukraine I doubt if it is the same model the USAF have so which have they used in the simulations ???

Most of the aircraft you mentioned have also undergone various upgrades in systems and weaponry
There is also the MIG 31 that is fully upgraded and flies very high and is one of the fastest military aircraft about

Both the SU 35 and the MIG 29 are much faster and have a longer range and in the case of the SU 35 it has something called thrust vectoring

There are also SU 57
But both the SU 35 and SU 57 as you have noted haven't played to bigger a part

What Russia has been using is another derivative the SU 34 which is more suitable for what they are doing dropping bombs and for a while now Glider Bombs up to 2000lbs , it is an old bomb that has basically had a glider section fitted and a very cheap guidance system and can be dropped from a good distance away. The bad news is unlike a incoming missile it cannot be tracked and shot down easily with air defence missiles.

I have been fortunate enough to fly in both a MIG 29 and a MIG 31 to the edge of space awesome experience the views down are magical and high adrenalin rush when the afterburners kick in also did the aerobatics part in the 29 as birthday presents.

I have fond memories of the Sokol factory in Nizhny Novgorod my husband proposed to me in the middle of the factory canteen and we got serenaded by the workers at lunch.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@Avectoijesuismoi long range only matters if you're escorting bombers someplace. Our carrier based fighters are feared worldwide, and don't have much range. the carriers "project power".

There were actual dogfights (unarmed, electronic buzzers) between F16s, F22s, F35s. and various captured soviet aircraft.

The F16's acquitted themselves so well, that some senators asked "why are we building so many F22s and F35s then?"

Avectoijesuismoi · 36-40

@SusanInFlorida The only issue with captured aircraft is where they were captured because like the US doesn't supply the most up to date variants of the F 16 even to it's allies, equally the Russian's do exactly the same to those they sell aircraft to so it could be a lesser variant and less upgraded version and in some cases aircraft they want to get rid of and get some money back

The main difference between the US and the Russian strategy as far as aircraft go is the USAF will spend a lot of Dollars per aircraft and pack it full of tech and build only a few like the F 22
Russia on the other hand build a lot of cheaper aircraft and they are far quicker to build as well as there being a lot of standardisation The SU27 became the SU 30 with upgrades which then became the SU 35 with further upgrading it also somewhere along the line became the SU 34 which is designed to be a bomber/fighter.

The biggest issue for the F 16 is the runways in the Ukraine they need very good ones compared to what the MIG and SU can operate off

With the F22 and F35 the Russian version is the SU57 which also is proving costly to build in great numbers and the more complicated the aircraft becomes the more maintenance and the higher number of people needed in specialist fields to do it that is a big hidden cost that they really don't want the public to know about.

As an example take a Gulfstream G650 business jet if it spends 400 hours flying or there abouts in a year, maintenance cost you are looking at between 400-500 K per year per aircraft there is nowhere near what has to be maintained on a fighter jet on it. At a rough guess I would say you can safely double if not more that per year for a F16 and probably add even more for the more specialized F22 and F35