What the language of the law says isn't what is being done. The weapons and aid are going to Ukraine and there's a very high chance they will not be paying anything back. His post also completely undercuts the fact that the US has been the main reason Ukraine still exists in the present.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
What the language of the law says isn't what is being done. The weapons and aid are going to Ukraine and there's a very high chance they will not be paying anything back. His post also completely undercuts the fact that the US has been the main reason Ukraine still exists in the present.
No, the main reason Ukraine still exists are the men and women fighting for it's existence. The US have been the biggest ally and largest contributor, but aren't actually fighting Russians...
Other than that I'm not here to fight another posters corner in all honesty. I only pointed out what the actual law says, and am reserved as to whether the current President holds enough favor with the party opposite to go beyond the law on a bipartisan act. I think it's entirely possible that people are helping Ukraine for the right reasons and are still looking at making a buck while at it.
UK Rivet Joint reconnaissance planes started flying with escorts a couple of days ago, now we know why.
And those men and women wouldn't be fighting today if not for the weapons they've received. Otherwise this would've been over within a few weeks.
The US aren't going to be compensated for the billions in weapons they have given to Ukraine because they are intended for a strategic purpose of stopping Russian aggression in Europe (which benefits the NATO and the EU) and the Ukrainians wouldn't have the money to pay anyway. That's why they call it "aid". The US literally gives free money to a list of countries each year.
The first deliveries the US made are exempt of my criticism, you are right about them.
The lend lease act however clearly states that Ukraine has to pay and it is one if the reasons why Ukraine needs money now. This isn't about lending money to Ukraine, that's a totally different topic.
And there is no foundation for your claim that Ukraine won't have to pay for it, or do you have any sources that the US won't insist on paying that money? At best it is a huge political risk depending on who wins the next elections.
The US gives away billions in assistance to countries each year. If Ukraine is at war and has no resources, they won't be paying anything.
Again I ask what is your source that Ukraine won't have to pay for equipment delivered under the lend lease act? I am not talking about other aid packages, just about this specific part.
Is there a source that they will have to pay for the weapons?
The actual law, @Abizzz linked it above.
Keep in mind that militaty equipment is usually damaged or destroyed after a war, so following the law about repayment for such damaged loaned goods it effectively amounts to the full value of the weapons delivered under this act.
Its literally in the language. The law is not supposed to seek payment for anything. The language is specifically written that way to facilitate the US getting resources to Ukraine and the President can waive any of the provisions within the law, which means Biden can "loan" Ukraine as much as is needed and not seek repayment.
Ehm... no?
Again: "Any loan or lease of defense articles to the Government of Ukraine under paragraph (1) shall be subject to all applicable laws concerning the return of and reimbursement and repayment for defense articles loan or leased to foreign governments."
All rules about repayment for such goods are valid under this law, there is nothing in the law that Biden might just waive those demands.
There's a provision in the language called:
(4) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.—The President may delegate the enhanced authority under this subsection only to an official appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
What this means is that the President can waive any existing policy regarding lease or payment.
In summary: The law is set up as a special provision to get around existing US law, so that the the US government can quickly funnel resources to Ukraine (as they have).
The language of getting reimbursement is optional and at the discretion of the President.
No, that's not what the law says. (1) Authorizes the president to decide on lend or lease deals, (2) makes exemptions for export control, (3) explicitly states that the usual financial rules are valid, (4) allows the president to name someone who makes the decisions defined under (1) on behalf of the president.
There is no passage in that law that allows waiving payments.
The correct summary is that this law is a bypass around the usual US export rules.
And also it means that the US will be the actual owner of the delivered weapons, not Ukraine. It's possible that the US would like this fact to put some resrraints on how Ukraine might use some weapons as part of the respective loan deal.
Again. The purpose of the law is to expedite arms and aid to Ukraine so that the President can waive existing bureaucratic roadblocks in getting arms to Ukraine, not to profit off of the war as your initial post seemed to imply.
Also, more broadly, you are criticizing a US policy that you seem to be rather uneducated about, while posting from a nation who initially volunteered the contribution of 500 helmets to Ukraine, and then continually attempted to slither out of providing weapons until they had to have their arms twisted.
Therefore, you have very little moral leverage to criticize the US contribution (which is overwhelming and comprehensive to Ukraine's survival), by tapdancing around legal nuances in a US law that will never be enforced to collect any money off Ukraine or any other nation.
What does it matter which nationality I have? I'm not Olaf Scholz and haven't voted for him, I have criticised his reluctance to deliver weapons quite often in this thread before.
And you are right, the law is there to get rid of road blocks. It's not there to get rid of invoices as you keep suggesting.
And you are right, the law is there to get rid of road blocks. It's not there to get rid of invoices as you keep suggesting.
I'd be curious to know why the UK planes are in the Black Sea in the first place and where they are based out of
Operating from Romanian air force bases, this has been going on for a long time now. Electronic reconnaissance primarily.
Haven’t UK and US surveillance planes been flying out of Romania over the Black Sea on the regular?
You can track them as they keep their identifiers on so as not to be shot down as enemy aircraft. Because of course they’re neutral and not providing any intel or targeting data from the Crimea sector that they can cover from that distance to Ukraine (insert ‘sarcastic wink’ gif here).
Ukraine is the main reason Ukraine still exists in the present.
To be fair, despite the heroic acts of Ukrainians fighting for their own country, Ukraine as a country would not exist right now if not for an intense, ongoing infusion of primarily US weapons throughout the past 8 months. Even with extensive foreign support, the Russians still managed to get to the outskirts of Kyiv in March. Had they managed another 20km, the Capital and government would've fallen and the Russians would've ostensibly taken over all of Ukraine.
I think winter favors Ukrainian advances. Russian troops in Ukraine are already bogged down with a lack of weapons, morale, and logistics. Throwing snowy weather into the mix will only expedite their demise. The Ukrainians in the meantime, will continue to have the luxury of endless weapons and materiel from outside sources and are already experts at the terrain given that its their country.
1. NATO is openly supporting Ukraine and provides intelligence, money, material and everything else Ukraine needs to win this war. The NATO countries have repeatedly said so in public, it is not a secret. Russia is the aggressor, we (NATO) are helping the victim (Ukraine), and the goal is to liberate all Ukraine from Russian occupation.
2. NATO is not directly taking part in this war. For example, there are no NATO planes with NATO pilots bombing the Russians, USAF is not using F-35s to bomb the Russians. That's a different thing. Ukrainians are doing the actual fighting (and a few volunteers from all over the world).
I don't know why it is so hard to understand this, it is not complicated. These are two separate things. NATO is not neutral, but is not directly taking part in this war.
Of course, the propagandists in Russian TV keep saying that Russia is fighting NATO. But everyone knows that if the USAF used its force the fighting would be over long time ago. The Russians can barely match the Ukrainians, they'd easily lose to a NATO air force with modern F-16s, F-35s, etc.
(And yes, USA has implied that if the Russians use WMDs against Ukraine, then NATO will directly fight the Russians. This is also an option. )
I don’t know what I wrote that necessitated this response. I’m a little confused.
NATO Rivet Joints and AWACS usually based in their respective country and US Global Hawks based in Syracuse Italy have been visible flying reconnaissance missions over the Black Sea since the invasion started.
Some of the time NATO aerial refueling planes providing them with fuel are also visible circling over eastern Romania.
I don't think UK have any reconnaissance aircrafts based in Romania. These planes are very high value targets and I don't think they would risk having them that close to a potential enemy while on the ground.
Why do you believe this? A lend lease is literally lending in the form of a loan. The Lend Lease the US gave to Britain was only paid off a couple of years ago. The Lend Lease Britain had was prior to when big money got out of hand in US Politics. I imagine Ukraine will have a similar arrangement where the loan is paid back over 80 or more years, perhaps with some payment holidays for 5 years or so in order for them to rebuild.
From Ukraine's perspective it will happily agree to pay such loans with favourable payment arrangements back on a manageable basis in order to survive as an independent nation.
US politics is primarily about protecting big business interests. The military industrial complex is a huge sector of the economy and a massive part of the US budget. This war allows them to spend even more into the military industrial complex, who in turn are big donors to all of the politicians. But any fiscally responsible US government isn't going to want to give away it's taxpayers money away for free. They will get their money back, even if it's financed over a century.
Perhaps there are also other deals on the table that offset the borrowing. Such as Ukraine bringing in US oil and gas companies to help extract it's very valuable resources.
Nothing "necessitated" the response. But you said something that I see mentioned from time to time, both here and in other media. And this triggered my response.
You said: "because of course they’re neutral".
But clearly, NATO is not neutral. And NATO is not directly participating in this war, either. It is not just you, many commentators seem to want to confuse these two things and imply that since we are not neutral, we are direct participants. No, we are not direct participants, these two are two different things.
I think you missed my humor. I tried to make it obvious with the “sarcastic wink” mention.
They don't have any money and won't anytime soon. Any funds they do accrue will be needed to rebuild the country. We're talking hundreds of billions here. The US has zero interest in charging the Ukrainians for aid it gives away for free to other countries every year. This is viewed as a geopolitical emergency where western involvement isn't optional in terms of stopping Putin.
Biden has already requested 33billion of aid to Ukraine. That is free money, support, and weapons the Ukrainians are getting (all of which is separate from the bill we are discussing, which is mainly a way to expedite agreements with countries to support Ukraine).
This is beneath you.
I think you missed my humor. I tried to make it obvious with the “sarcastic wink” mention.
Yes, I missed your humor. I did see the "sarcastic wink" but I don't see why it is funny. Who says we are neutral?
Yes, you are right, Britain was paying till 2006. But the real question is, how much was it paying? In 2006, Britain paid 43 million, which is a miniscule amount for both Britain and for USA. Yes, Britain was "repaying the loan for 60 years", but actually it was a gift from USA to Britain.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/worldbusiness/28iht-nazi.4042453.html
"The loan, the equivalent of £119 billion in today's money, was double the size of the British economy at the time. Today it's a tiny fraction of Britain's £550 billion debt burden"
Your gonna struggle to get your weapons used without willing Ukrainians at the trigger end.