Ukraine

[oddoneout]

Also, as I understand it, the money went to US arms manufacturers (and some of it was munitions taken out of storage).

Some interesting points here - and sadly a somewhat prescient concern voiced about continuation of aid to Ukraine in the event of a Trump second term.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/how-america-s-aid-to-ukraine-actually-works

A comment under another article I read(possibly FT) made the point that arms and equipment due to be decommissioned due to age(but still serviceable) is included in what is sent to Ukraine which means that costs of storage and decommission are no longer incurred on it.

[Dave2002]

Fwiw I’m unable to cut and paste the links but the UK and Germany appear to have provided 14B and 17B Euros respectively in direct aid to Ukraine in the last 3 yrs; the US roughly 160 billion. As we know these amounts have kept Ukraine afloat at a terrible human cost. If the EU were to triple their contribution and the US were to retain 25% of present support even that looks inadequate. Given present political realities it’s hard to see more support than that being offered .

The only viable solution I see is for the EU to put in place thousands of peacekeepers as human shields, and then hope that all participants in NATO would honor their commitments if they are attacked. Perhaps that would be a future US Administration

I really don't know the "correct" expenditure for each country involved. There are many "sources" but maybe most of them are incorrect. See msgs 2028 and 2029 above.

It may be that the US has really provided more per US capita than other countries, but I don't know. The view which seems to be promoted here is that the UK and EU commitments are overall comparable to that of the US - but it is really hard to know what the "correct" data is. I would agree that the UK and EU should increase the proportional spending, but there is such a lot of misinformation [may not be deliberate] on most sides that it's very hard to get a handle on it.

An added factor is whether assistance is given with funding - or direct. The issue of "off loading" older military equipment and ammunition has been raised, but there may be other forms of assistance. Trying to compare all the components and put monetary value on them might actually be very difficult. Countries which may want to send in older equipment may still want to pay to have their own stocks replenished - as indeed would the US. It may also be expedient for some countries to pay the US government and US firms to supply goods and services, as that may logistically be much quicker, though there may also be European countries which are or coud be geared up for much more rapid delivery. Ukraine itself appears to have been remarkably quick and able in regard to some aspects of the efforts which have been required.

[Historian]

Also, as I understand it, the money went to US arms manufacturers (and some of it was munitions taken out of storage).

Some of the money went to US arms manufacturers, but the same would be true of UK/European military assistance. Again, some of the European munitions would also be taken out of storage.

Unlike the UK/ Europe, the US has large stockpiles of partially-outdated equipment which is still useful to Ukraine. It is not just a matter of counting up the dollars/euros (as I am sure you realise). European militaries (including the UK) do not have the range of capabilities possessed by the US. Just offloading old equipment can be counter-productive in terms of complicating logistics and maintenance for example. The US equipment tends to be of a higher specification than some of the European donations.

[kernelbogey]

Not clear what is being compared here. These are the BBC Verify figures placed in context. The US may claim to be the biggest single donor but is also the biggest state.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o

Also, as I understand it, the money went to US arms manufacturers (and some of it was munitions taken out of storage).

[french frank]

Fwiw I’m unable to cut and paste the links but the UK and Germany appear to have provided 14B and 17B Euros respectively in direct aid to Ukraine in the last 3 yrs; the US roughly 160 billion.

Not clear what is being compared here. These are the BBC Verify figures placed in context. The US may claim to be the biggest single donor but is also the biggest state.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o

[richardfinegold]

Fwiw I’m unable to cut and paste the links but the UK and Germany appear to have provided 14B and 17B Euros respectively in direct aid to Ukraine in the last 3 yrs; the US roughly 160 billion. As we know these amounts have kept Ukraine afloat at a terrible human cost. If the EU were to triple their contribution and the US were to retain 25% of present support even that looks inadequate. Given present political realities it’s hard to see more support than that being offered .

The only viable solution I see is for the EU to put in place thousands of peacekeepers as human shields, and then hope that all participants in NATO would honor their commitments if they are attacked. Perhaps that would be a future US Administration

[Historian]

Weinberger got a Knighthood?

Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in 1988 (highest award in that order). As he was not a British citizen he could not call himself 'Sir Casper'.

Sadly rfg I agree that Trump Part One is looking much better, comparatively, than the current incarnation.

[richardfinegold]

A key figure being Caspar Weinberger who got a knighthood for his supportive efforts. How we are crying out for such figures now. Of course that generation had direct experience of world war and tyranny.

Weinberger got a Knighthood?
The larger point about surrounding a leader with competent ministers is appreciated. As bad as Trump I was, there was at least a sense that he was surrounded by people that were attempting to rain in his excesses and push his energies into responsible policy making . There were frequent ministerial changes, evidence that people had convictions and were standing up to him. Trump I is looking pretty good now by comparison.
Fwiw it’s felt here that if the election were to be held today with the same candidates Harris would win. Small consolation.

[Historian]

I don't think it's all speculation.

No, it includes factual information but the premisses behind it are about what may be the case or what might happen.

I will not dispute much of what you say in post 2023, however the US spends huge amounts of time and effort ensuring that the most sensitive information is kept safe from 'bad actors' including the ones you have mentioned. Currently the UK benefits from this as well as contributing to the flow of Intelligence. How would trying to create our own secure Intelligence network, with vastly less funding and capability, ensure that these 'bad actors' did not infiltrate to a far greater extent? Therefore I stay with my main point that isolating ourselves from the USA's Intelligence network would be a massively retrograde step.

Time will show whether and how far we are seeing a substantial re-alignment by the current US administration. However, that was not the issue I was focusing on in post 2015.

[Dave2002]

As Monbiot freely admits, several times, much of his article is based on speculation.

By all means go with France as a potential model for going it alone as he suggests, but then accept that you will not have access to anything more than a tiny fraction of the Intelligence currently available to the UK. This will have consequences.

I don't think it's all speculation.

I assume that almost anything we post is going to be visible to the US. Also - since it is quite lilkely that Russian or other actors such as North Korea, have hacked into the US - those countries will also have information.

Re Europe - most traffic that goes via satellite links is going to be visible to the US - as there is also at least one downlink channel to a US site or a site of a US ally. That's in the spec of the satellites - and certainly will apply to US launched satellites.

For European satellites - while currently the US is an ally - and indeed we hope it will remain so - there is also a requirement for at least one downlink channel to within an EU country. Note however, that that could include countries such as Romania and Hungary, though I suspect that mostly this is going to mean Germany and or France. Whether the UK still has access to downlinks from EU satellites I do not know.

For fibre links the situation is going to be a lot more. complicated, and we also [speculate - agreed] that there is at least one bad actor disrupting or breaking fibre links.

Some of the traffic is going to be encrypted - though it is likely that the major countries which can intercept the traffic will be able to decrypt the traffic and then examine it for "interesting" content.

[Historian]

See https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lf-us-military

As Monbiot freely admits, several times, much of his article is based on speculation.

By all means go with France as a potential model for going it alone as he suggests, but then accept that you will not have access to anything more than a tiny fraction of the Intelligence currently available to the UK. This will have consequences.

[Dave2002]

The USA's Intelligence efforts are several orders of magnitude greater than the rest of the Europe and the UK put together. The CIA budget alone is greater than the entire UK defence budget.

Despite what is happening currently, it would certainly not be in our national interest to remove ourselves from this system.

See https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lf-us-military

[Ein Heldenleben]

The Reagan administration was initially divided on the US response, but then came out firmly in favour of the UK offering crucial Intelligence and logistical support. More here.

A key figure being Caspar Weinberger who got a knighthood for his supportive efforts. How we are crying out for such figures now. Of course that generation had direct experience of world war and tyranny.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Just a reminder that, of the two major powers struggling for influence in the Indo-Pacific region (among other places), one is a functioning democracy with a Constitution full of checks and balances, whereas the other is a one-party state with a long record of ignoring the rule of law with regard to its own citizens.

Not to mention the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution which led to the deaths of at least 40 million maybe more. Aligning ourselves with China : what a ridiculous idea,

[Historian]

Just a reminder that, of the two major powers struggling for influence in the Indo-Pacific region (among other places), one is a functioning democracy with a Constitution full of checks and balances, whereas the other is a one-party state with a long record of ignoring the rule of law with regard to its own citizens.