Sky News Analysis di chi ha dato cosa all’Ucraina di Ed Conway
https://v.redd.it/l5ma33knagle1
di MiniBrownie
Sky News Analysis di chi ha dato cosa all’Ucraina di Ed Conway
https://v.redd.it/l5ma33knagle1
di MiniBrownie
18 commenti
[Original Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0B4eE8q2ug). Thought this was a very detailed and interesting analysis and should help clear up a lot of the misinformation being spread around
Welcome to reality; war is, and has always been an investment for America. They couldn’t care less about right or wrong, and Delusional Donny’s nonsense is just an exaggerated sales pitch from a morally corrupt, self-serving fraud. Manipulating America’s Gullible Audience.
Six minutes of average european TV contain more news and fact-checked information than the average viewer in the US would get on fox news in a whole year.
Very nice to have this illustrated. It shows once again what a moron Trump is and how much more support Europe could give Ukraine.
Solid 😀
I hope some American people will see this.
This is how adults talk and relay information, you see.
Trump just vomits lies with a vocabulary of 6 year old.
Choose who you listen to.
Effectively destroying the regular Russian armed forces for less than a Gulf War is relatively cheap for NATO really. They didn’t even have to fight them directly. Ukraine paid in lives though and occupied territory which is the ultimate cost for them.
And Russia is economically isolated to a large degree so it has a difficulty in building back up.
As a geopolitical strategic thing this will be considered a major check against Russian aggression historically speaking. And it was relatively cheap for the West. And is an object lesson for China regarding their Taiwan ambitions.
Surely all of the money should be paid back by Russia, the aggressors in this situation.
Unfortunately the average MAGA will not understand this as it’s in English. ( Not sure if /s is needed )
Clearly, Krasnov is a buffoon when he talks, but this analysis is somewhat wrong, imho
1 Orange talks about the “rare earth” deal, but as we’ve seen in drafts and leaks, on paper, it covered almost everything – from natural resources to infrastructure. Hell, probably even agricultural , meaning eggs might as well be a rare mineral for him… well, he probably needs them.
2 Mineral (resource in general) deposits like oil, gas& lithium in Ukraine remain somewhat of a mystery because it was never been fully explored geologically. For example, Yanukovych classified the last results of explorationas a “state secret.” After he fled, Russia occupied Crimea – securing access to Black Sea shelf resources such as gas – and then began its “it’s not us” operations in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions -potential lithium sites. The full extent of Ukraine’s resource deposits is unknown, but the best current estimate suggests they may hold around 10% of the world’s lithium reserves, which is significant.
Imho this is probably one of the main reasons why Russia attacked, with ideological rhetoric about “one people” being on the same level. Because if Ukraine in EU with this, it means it less dependent on russian energy and being more secure.
FYI – first objects what russia occupied even before dropping in Crimea was ukrainian gas platforms in Black Sea. So 2+2 =
People often try to calculate the “cost” of US (and EU too) military aid to Ukraine: “look how much we spent there!”. It’s not a direct cash expense. Those money wouldn’t go to the poor and in need nor they would fix eggs problems. These money will fund more and more military research and production in US, so in fact it kind of comes back to these contractors.
The US government sets the prices for weapons through contracts with designated defense companies before they buy them, so it’s like “make this cool bomb and we will pay you X, oh and we will also heavily subsidize you and give preferable treatment so we know we have a lot of good stuff from you”. And these prices can’t be too low, because if they are, the military companies will look for other buyers elsewhere. High price gives them exclusivity.
Plus, much of the aid isn’t newly purchased for the war in Ukraine. It’s like “we bought lot of it (so the military complex is profitable and can make even more murderous stuff), it works and it’s good, but we aren’t going to use it anytime soon, so you can have it before we will need to demobilize it or sell it to some more suspicious country”.
So yea, you set a high price for something that was made especially for you, that some of the purchases will come back in form of taxes (well, given how crafty US companies are in evading it, maybe doubtful), then give it away because you don’t need it and shout how much money did you give away.
Promise him 500B from rare earths. Deliver 2Billion and force him to spend US aid for the infrastructure and reconstruction
It’s kinda sad that Trump gets to decide the fate of a nation, for his profit. Don’t tell me, that he wants that profit for the US, because he’s privatising America as we speak.
Let’s break down the Europe block into individual countries – Japan and Canada appear in the list…..
I mean did anyone with still some brain in head believed what that orange lunatic was saying, lying with triple the numbers he pulled out of his arse?
Good segment. One critical component is missing, how is the money spend? The US gave away a lot of equipment (that was aged) from it own stock and ordered worth billions of new equipment to replace this. I have serious doubt about whether the US billions accurately reflect their factual contribution…
Than there are the European euro’s, some of these billions (direct and indirectly via Ukraine) when to the US in the form of military acquirement. This is EU money being pumped into the US economy.
And we haven’t even talked about all the new contracts signed between EU militaries and US companies as result of the war.
Everyone who thinks US is drawing the short end in this war, is an absolute moron.
It should be noted that the Kiel institute is inaccurate when it comes to many nations deliveries like Italy and Spain, Italy for example gave about triple what is reported there, despite ample reporting Kiel institute still has not updated the count in 2 years, so give or take Europe has given 5 or 6 billion in aid more than what is reported here.
Why did they remove the EU share of aid from countries in their % graph?
With it, all EU countries are another 0,2-0,3%higher.