[TrumpCard]

Article in the Wash Post by a conservative columnist who participated in a study by the American Enterprise Institute into where U.S. military aid dollars are actually spent (bottom line: almost 90% in the U.S., mainly to manufacture new arms to replace older arms we sent overseas).

(if above link does not work, try: article)

Why would we think it is any other way?  We're the #1 arms manufacturer and like 5x compared to #2.  Russia and China are two of our biggest competitors and we sure as heck aren't going to be buying from them.  It makes sense to have U.S. arms manufacturers produce the necessary vehicles, weapons systems, and other supplies because it's better to support jobs here than support jobs abroad, especially Russia or China.  Also, we have enormous stockpiles of vehicles, weapons systems, etc., which Ukraine urgently needed.  It was more efficient and perfectly sensible for us to give Ukraine the stuff it needed and then replenish our stockpiles as soon as we could.  Making new stuff for Ukraine would: (1) cause delays in the transfer of urgently needed stuff; and (2) increase the likelihood that we'd ultimately have to decommission the aging stuff that had been sitting in our stockpiles.  Also, let's not be fooled into thinking that the arms deliveries are nothing more than government support of the U.S. defense industry.  The stuff we've delivered to Ukraine has made an enormous difference.  I doubt Ukraine would have control of Kharkiv today without that help from the U.S.  The most negative thing you could say is that the U.S. might be overvaluing the military aid it is providing if, for example, it is using some methodology for book value that is too disconnected from actual FMV.

[TrumpCard]

Article in the Wash Post by a conservative columnist who participated in a study by the American Enterprise Institute into where U.S. military aid dollars are actually spent (bottom line: almost 90% in the U.S., mainly to manufacture new arms to replace older arms we sent overseas).

(if above link does not work, try: article)

Why would we think it is any other way?  We're the #1 arms manufacturer and like 5x compared to #2.  Russia and China are two of our biggest competitors and we sure as heck aren't going to be buying from them.  It makes sense to have U.S. arms manufacturers produce the necessary vehicles, weapons systems, and other supplies because it's better to support jobs here than support jobs abroad, especially Russia or China.  Also, we have enormous stockpiles of vehicles, weapons systems, etc., which Ukraine urgently needed.  It was more efficient and perfectly sensible for us to give Ukraine the stuff it needed and then replenish our stockpiles as soon as we could.  Making new stuff for Ukraine would: (1) cause delays in the transfer of urgently needed stuff; and (2) increase the likelihood that we'd ultimately have to decommission the aging stuff that had been sitting in our stockpiles.  Also, let's not be fooled into thinking that the arms deliveries are nothing more than government support of the U.S. defense industry.  The stuff we've delivered to Ukraine has made an enormous difference.  I doubt Ukraine would have control of Kharkiv today without that help from the U.S.  The most negative thing you could say is that the U.S. might be overvaluing the military aid it is providing if, for example, it is using some methodology for book value that is too disconnected from actual FMV.