Gonna write this up in longer form, but folks complaining that the $45bn Ukraine costs are high miss two key points:
1. The direct costs in (US) military aid are surprisingly small; in the order of $19bn this year, and $10.8bn committed (so far) for next year
2. The indirect economic costs of the Russian war to the US economy (i.e. to the private sector not via the government) are in the order of $600-700bn per year. To pick a random company, it's nearly $6-10bn in costs to Apple *alone*.
In other words, if the US upped it's spend by, say, 25% and that reduced the length of the war by *just a whole week*, it would *make money*.
It's a good example of how the size of war economics harms get truly insane really quickly, and get you to unintuitive places about just how much of the war costs end up as indirect, rather than direct costs.
Or if you want it put another way, every American is spending in the order of $50 a year in direct lethal assistance to Ukraine, but losing about $1700 a year in indirect economic costs caused by that war.
If you had a company that sold a widget that upped a business cost from $50 to, let's say, $100, but doing so saved the customer $1700 a year, how quickly do you think VCs in Silicon Valley would jump in to invest in that widget?
Economic costs get into stratospheric numbers when you start looking at global dampening effects, and get really hard for the human brain to comprehend. So you end up having to do the translation into comprehendible numbers.
So if you want to put it another way, the indirect costs of the Ukraine war is equivalent to, say, 6 million American jobs a year.
How much would Congress pay in subsidies to get 6 million people into new jobs? Idk. But $45bn sounds super cheap at those scales.
Taking OECD numbers of the cost of the war at 3% of global GDP, give or take, and assuming that's uniformly spread globally, ending the war would *double* US GDP growth.
So why is the US investing only $10.8bn of lethal aid next year into getting that to happen sooner?
@JDN5IX @SwiftOnSecurity @Pwnallthethings where's the part showing US military spending is shortening the war?
US and UK purposefully derailing any diplomacy seems to show that isn't the objective.
@matty @SwiftOnSecurity @Pwnallthethings
While there are certainly as many different perspectives on this topic as there are people looking at it, in my opinion, an unprovoked war of aggression should not be rewarded with a diplomatic solution, as this invites further unprovoked aggression by the petulant child to further the aims of their wants.
We have history to consult when it comes to the question of appeasing an aggressive power.
The Budapest Memorandum was broken by russia. At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, it’s really that easy; and the fact that from the onset putin has lied, shifted his reasoning, etc shows bad faith.
His actions are indefensible, the actions of his military are criminal, and there really is no other way to spin the situation.
If you’ve come to make an argument, that’s about as much of a rebuttal as you’re going to get from me - there really is no point in further discussion, my opinion won’t be swayed.
If russia wants an end to the conflict they can stop lobbing artillery into civilian areas, leave the borders of Ukraine as recognized prior to February 2014, and stand trial for war crimes.
It’s a short list.
@matty @SwiftOnSecurity @Pwnallthethings
You absolutely have the right to hold that opinion 🤙😎
Pwnallthethings
SwiftOnSecurity
JDN6 Ⓥ
A Library Socialist