Russia has lost 87% of troops it had prior to start of Ukraine war, according to US intelligence assessment | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
Russia has lost a staggering 87 percent of the total number of active-duty ground troops it had prior to launching its invasion of Ukraine and two-thirds of its pre-invasion tanks, a source familiar with a declassified US intelligence assessment provided to Congress told CNN.

Russia has lost a staggering 87 percent of the total number of active-duty ground troops it had prior to launching its invasion of Ukraine and two-thirds of its pre-invasion tanks, a source familiar with a declassified US intelligence assessment provided to Congress told CNN.

Still, despite heavy losses of men and equipment, Russian President Vladimir Putin is determined to push forward as the war approaches its two-year anniversary early next year and US officials are warning that Ukraine remains deeply vulnerable. A highly anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive stagnated through the fall, and US officials believe that Kyiv is unlikely to make any major gains over the coming months.

The assessment, sent to Capitol Hill on Monday, comes as some Republicans have balked at the US providing additional funding for Ukraine and the Biden administration has launched a full-court press to try to get supplemental funding through Congress.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    310·
    1 year ago

    That argument is just a variant of the Broken Window Falacy.

    The resources that are spent in stuff that’s blown up could otherwise be spent in stuff that provided years of benefit to people, so it is wasted - sure the money itself circulates within the US economy, but what matters is were you spend human time and material resources, not the movement of trade tokens per-se.

    In Economic terms, making weapons for Ukraine to use against Russia is a good investment, especially for Europa, because it stops Russia from advancing further, killing people and destroying stuff, not to mention gaining control over lot of resources, not because of some economically falacious argument that has been disproven decades ago.

    • no banana@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      There’s no fallacy, since I’m not pretending that isn’t the case. Saying it doesn’t go to the American people isn’t strictly true. It’s an investment into the defense industry. That is wages and jobs. Those equal consumption further down the line. Could the resources be spent somewhere else? Sure. But I didn’t argue against that. I specifically took issue with saying that the money doesn’t go to the American people.

      The people on the right, not the politicians but the actual people, hear how America is pretty much shipping cash to Ukraine (because the news they watch leave out the facts) which is where they get the idea of “Zelenskiy buying cocaine on their tab”. We have to make clear when we discuss these things that America is investing this money in local production. The products of those jobs are what is shipped to Ukraine. The money stays in America, and Zelenskiy isn’t buying a new yacht with them (which is one of the talking points I’ve heard from the right).

      I do not disagree that there’s a discussion to be had, but I think it’s important to be clear about what the discussion actually is. I’m also in strong doubts about whether it needs to be a choice between weapons and other things. The United States can do both. The fact that both isn’t done speaks to the idea that not investing in arms for Ukraine wouldn’t mean that other investments were made instead.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        1 year ago

        For clarity:

        • If the two only options were to spend the money in the US making weapons or spend it outside the US making weapons, then it’s better for the US to spend it in the US making weapons as what’s created using the resources is weapons either way and if spent in the US other benifits of spending that money (as you pointed out: “wages and jobs”) are captured in the US.
        • However if the options being considered are spend the money making weapons or spend it making something else, economically it’s probably better to spend it something else because it would still generate “wages and jobs” and in addition to that there could be other benefits from that something else (imagine for examples if it went into bridges and roads: unless they’re “bridges to nowhere” those thinks tend to keep on delivering economic benefits long after the money was spent) which weapons do not bring.

        That said, the World is as it is, Russia acts as it acts, so in overall other nations have to spend that money in weapons and military because of them anyway, and even in a pure, cold “financial analysis” (i.e. moral aside) the single most efficient way of achieving the desired result (stop Russia from fucking things up for everybody else) is by helping Ukraine militarily.

        In fact, I think Europe (were I am) is still not doing enough in that front.

        My point was entirelly on, in abstract, that using a country’s money to make weapons is generally not a good investment from an economic point of view.