• Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
      8·
      3 days ago

      Most Ukraine funding is actually in the form of weapons, most of which have been sitting in warehouses in case of war with Russia. Now they get used before going obsolete and the US’s #1 rival is quickly becoming irrelevant without putting US soldiers at risk. We provide the weapons and Ukraine supplies the soldiers. I think we got the better side of that bargain.

      This whole idea that the US is spending money abroad out of some kind of altruism or that we just let other countries take advantage is preposterous. It’s always money spent in furtherance of US interests. We are the wealthiest country in the world in large part because we exploit the labor and resources of the rest of the planet.

      • dosboy0xff@infosec.pub
        1·
        10 hours ago

        In addition, none of that money ever leaves the U.S. If $500 billion gets spent supporting Ukraine, that’s $500 billion that goes from Congress over to U.S. manufacturers, who create the supplies and then ship those over to Ukraine. The money goes straight back into the U.S. economy. (People can complain about it going mostly to arms manufacturers, but in this particular instance I feel like helping a friendly country protect itself from a hostile invading force is a pretty good use of that money)

        • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
          1·
          8 hours ago

          We could get a lot more benefit if we spent that money on building infrastructure instead of blowing shit up, but I still agree. Doing the right thing and US interests aligning doesn’t seem to happen very often. I think we have to act when they do.