Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

(155,578 posts)
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 06:24 PM Feb 2023

It's Costing Us Peanuts to defeat Russia

5% of the US military budget has yielded the destruction of at least 50% of the Russian military



https://cepa.org/article/its-costing-peanuts-for-the-us-to-defeat-russia/

These sums pale into insignificance when set against a total US defense budget of $715bn for 2022. The assistance represents 5.6% of total US defense spending. But Russia is a primary adversary of the US, a top tier rival not too far behind China, its number one strategic challenger. In cold, geopolitical terms, this war provides a prime opportunity for the US to erode and degrade Russia’s conventional defense capability, with no boots on the ground and little risk to US lives.

The Ukrainian armed forces have already killed or wounded upwards of 100,000 Russian troops, half its original fighting force; there have been almost 8,000 confirmed losses of armored vehicles including thousands of tanks, thousands of APCs, artillery pieces, hundreds of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and numerous naval vessels. US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment. If we divide out the US defense budget to the threats it faces, Russia would perhaps be of the order of $100bn-150bn in spend-to-threat. So spending just $40bn a year, erodes a threat value of $100-150bn, a two-to-three time return.  Actually the return is likely to be multiples of this given that defense spending, and threat are annual recurring events.

The US military might reasonably wish Russia to continue deploying military forces for Ukraine to destroy. 

Meanwhile, replacing destroyed kit, and keeping up with the new arms race that it has now triggered with the West will surely end up bankrupting the Russian economy; especially an economy subject to aggressive Western sanctions. How can Russia possibly hope to win an arms race when the combined GDP of the West is $40 trillion, and its defense spending amounting to 2% of GDP totals well in excess of $1 trillion when the disproportionate US defense contribution is considered? Russia’s total GDP is only $1.8 trillion. Vladimir Putin will have to divert spending from consumption to defense, risking social and political unrest over the medium term, and a real and soon-to-be present danger to his regime. Just imagine how much more of a bargain Western military aid will be if it ultimately brings positive regime change in Russia.
30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It's Costing Us Peanuts to defeat Russia (Original Post) LetMyPeopleVote Feb 2023 OP
The point is made but, Disaffected Feb 2023 #1
From the CEPA cost/benefit analysis linked to in the OP teach1st Feb 2023 #5
I thought that was the overall tone of the article though. Disaffected Feb 2023 #6
It overlooks over things, too. Igel Feb 2023 #24
Russia also had a big hand in destroying "half" the Russian military.... whopis01 Feb 2023 #30
More of magas Never Ending LIES. Cha Feb 2023 #2
5% of our annual defense budget to stop Putin's advancement on Ukraine seems like a hell of a bargai LetMyPeopleVote Feb 2023 #3
this time it truly is a case of- fight them over there so we dont have to fight them over here. mopinko Feb 2023 #4
I'm all for spending whatever it takes SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2023 #7
Interfering in our elections is an attack questionseverything Feb 2023 #8
We can SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2023 #11
That was and is a damn whacking great attack Hekate Feb 2023 #13
As I said SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2023 #15
Putin has been attacking the US since he took over Russia. Irish_Dem Feb 2023 #9
r u kidding? he stuck us w trump. mopinko Feb 2023 #16
Dumbass voters stuck us with Trump n/t SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2023 #17
Cyberattacks and harassing US soldiers in Afghanistan and US Navy ships in the Pacific IronLionZion Feb 2023 #23
Yes it is a very small price to pay to defeat Russia and destroy their military. Irish_Dem Feb 2023 #10
KnR Hekate Feb 2023 #12
And also, much if not most of that money Mr.Bill Feb 2023 #14
Agree 100% n/t SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2023 #18
War by proxy? Larissa Feb 2023 #22
Reagan's strategy was to spend trillions on an arms race to keep Russia under control. Midnight Writer Feb 2023 #19
Clearly the best response to Republican bitchin' Red Mountain Feb 2023 #20
The apex of military AssHoliness was at the peak of the Cold War Mopar151 Feb 2023 #26
Settingn aside the morality of the fight, we and our NATO allies are grinding down a near peer.... paleotn Feb 2023 #21
these fascist fucks didn't care about TRILLIONS wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan Skittles Feb 2023 #25
If it's costing us peanuts, it's a good thing we have peanut farmers. JustABozoOnThisBus Feb 2023 #27
Misleading subject line to this discussion Bucky Feb 2023 #28
I wouldn't put much stock in "positive regime change" in Russia Bucky Feb 2023 #29

Disaffected

(5,180 posts)
1. The point is made but,
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 06:30 PM
Feb 2023

for heaven's sake, it is not just the 5% of US military budget that has destroyed "half" the Russian military. IIRC, Ukraine itself and a number of NATO countries also had something to do with it.

teach1st

(5,969 posts)
5. From the CEPA cost/benefit analysis linked to in the OP
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 06:59 PM
Feb 2023
Note also that the war is also pushing NATO partners to quickly increase spending to the 2% of GDP and above target. Given the US’ technological advantage in defense equipment, a sizeable share of this additional military outlay will be spent on US equipment. 


It's a cost/benefit analysis of U.S. monies being spent on Ukraine. I didn't get that it excluded other countries and especially Ukraine. I'll reread it.

Disaffected

(5,180 posts)
6. I thought that was the overall tone of the article though.
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 07:08 PM
Feb 2023

It also states:

"US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment."

And the title of the article was:

"It’s Costing Peanuts for the US to Defeat Russia"

Anyhow, not a big deal - the bottom line is Ukraine military assistance is eminently worthwhile no matter what or where the source.

Igel

(36,240 posts)
24. It overlooks over things, too.
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 08:57 PM
Feb 2023

I got a dehydrator and I'm making jerky. Working on my "preferred" recipe and the fridge is filling up with dried cow.

I've spent $40 or $50 on 10 lbs of jerky. That's like 20 lbs of meat. At $6/lb (minimum), that $120 in dead bovine.

It doesn't add up. Except that I had a crapload of frozen beef in the freezer that was suitable.

That's the US. We've been drawing down stockpiles of weapons that we'll be replacing, and which will be budgeted for, for at least 2, 3 years. And much of that's been outdated, so when we replace the capability we'll be using higher-tech/spendier munitions.

I'm behind kicking the imperialist, genocidal orcs out of Ukraine. At the same time, I'm a sucky PR person. It'll cost NATO allies money to beef out their (finally honored treaty obligation-related) military spending, a long-standing issue for the last 20 years. It'll cost the US in restocking supplies. The worry is that it'll draw down stockpiles and some other imperialist country will use the perceived deficit to invade a certain island formerly recognized as an actual country.

whopis01

(3,748 posts)
30. Russia also had a big hand in destroying "half" the Russian military....
Tue Feb 21, 2023, 02:49 PM
Feb 2023

Just giving credit where credit is due.

mopinko

(71,970 posts)
4. this time it truly is a case of- fight them over there so we dont have to fight them over here.
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 06:54 PM
Feb 2023

also, um, they did attack us.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,383 posts)
7. I'm all for spending whatever it takes
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 07:18 PM
Feb 2023

to defeat Russia in Ukraine, but I don’t recall them attacking us.

Irish_Dem

(59,744 posts)
9. Putin has been attacking the US since he took over Russia.
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 07:28 PM
Feb 2023

Culminating with the installation of Trump into the White House.
Bought off MOC who do his bidding.
Bought off the NRA to make the US a dangerous place.

How many high level US officials work for Putin?
We find out frequently that Putin has his assets all over the US government.

Where does the media dark money funding come from.
Why is the media most usually the GOP propaganda arm?

mopinko

(71,970 posts)
16. r u kidding? he stuck us w trump.
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 08:06 PM
Feb 2023

he had a hi level fbi agent in his camp, and he leaked the crap that cost hillary the election. c’mon man.

IronLionZion

(47,131 posts)
23. Cyberattacks and harassing US soldiers in Afghanistan and US Navy ships in the Pacific
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 08:57 PM
Feb 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia#United_States

For US Navy electronic guidance systems I defer to this quote:

Ian Fleming — 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action

Irish_Dem

(59,744 posts)
10. Yes it is a very small price to pay to defeat Russia and destroy their military.
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 07:29 PM
Feb 2023

But a very high price for Ukraine.

Mr.Bill

(24,871 posts)
14. And also, much if not most of that money
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 07:42 PM
Feb 2023

is being spent right here in the USA to manufacture the equipment and ammo we are sending there. It's not like we are just handing cash over to Ukraine.

Kicking Russia's ass without any risk to American lives? That's a no-brainer.

Midnight Writer

(23,143 posts)
19. Reagan's strategy was to spend trillions on an arms race to keep Russia under control.
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 08:29 PM
Feb 2023

Didn't hear the Republicans beef about that.

Does anyone remember Star Wars?

Red Mountain

(1,930 posts)
20. Clearly the best response to Republican bitchin'
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 08:34 PM
Feb 2023

is to point out how wrong the Reagan military buildup was.

At least from a cost/benefit ratio perspective.

Mopar151

(10,191 posts)
26. The apex of military AssHoliness was at the peak of the Cold War
Tue Feb 21, 2023, 01:45 AM
Feb 2023

Operation Northwind was an evil plot to preminently strike USSR with nuclear weapons. Collateral damage would be 60 Million ± Lives, heavy destruction on the East Coast.......It would kick off with a CIA specialty, a false flag attack!

When Kennedy got wind of it, he fired Allen Dulles, NSA, snd, IIRC Lyle Leminitzer, JCS. A few months later,
President Kennedy was dead, and Dulles is saying "Who did that little Kennedy think he was?"

LBJ was the snake of snakes, and he had several hands in the game at Dealy Plaza. But he got the generals to put the nukes down, kept Dulles on the bench, and dug into the work of desegregating his beloved South, ensuring an economic future.

paleotn

(19,539 posts)
21. Settingn aside the morality of the fight, we and our NATO allies are grinding down a near peer....
Mon Feb 20, 2023, 08:52 PM
Feb 2023

with a small fraction of our overall defense budgets. Seems for the umpteenth time, we've grossly overestimated Russian military prowess. Add the morality factor back in and outside of WWII we're hard pressed to find a more black and white, good vs. evil situation in recent geopolitics.

Skittles

(160,363 posts)
25. these fascist fucks didn't care about TRILLIONS wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan
Tue Feb 21, 2023, 12:20 AM
Feb 2023

they need to STFU

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,828 posts)
27. If it's costing us peanuts, it's a good thing we have peanut farmers.
Tue Feb 21, 2023, 08:10 AM
Feb 2023

Especially one peanut farmer in particular.

Bucky

(55,334 posts)
28. Misleading subject line to this discussion
Tue Feb 21, 2023, 08:13 AM
Feb 2023

From hot minute there I thought Charlie and Linus had volunteered to go fight the Russian incursion. I mean, obviously, Lucy Van Pelt is the modern Rambo to send in

Bucky

(55,334 posts)
29. I wouldn't put much stock in "positive regime change" in Russia
Tue Feb 21, 2023, 08:34 AM
Feb 2023

Russia is the way it is because of its geography and its neighborhood. You're never gonna have a real democracy in Russia. It's too big, too diverse, and too geographically vulnerable to not have a strong man in charge.

But I will say that the sooner Russia is beat out of Ukraine and able to rebuild its military, the safer that section of the world will be. A Russia capable of stomping it's neighbors, but politically disinclined to try, is currently the only workable formula for a peaceful Central Asia.

I mean, I don't want to be cynical, but the second Russia collapses politically you're gonna see at least half a dozen brushfire wars along its periphery where ethnicities cross political lines. Chechens, Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, Ingush... There's a lot of suppressed rage sitting on top of all that drillable oil and natural gas. It's actually in everyone's interest that Russia can be a bully, just a bully who never actually punches.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It's Costing Us Peanuts t...