What We’re Paying for in Ukraine

Does the U.S. need to provide continuous aid?

By
10

Mark Cancian, senior adviser with CSIS International Security Program, joins Mary to discuss the ongoing battle for aid to Ukraine and its intersection with U.S. defense capabilities and stockpiles.

The Agenda:
-Breaking down the quantity and quality of aid provided by the U.S. to Ukraine
-Where Ukraine would be without the U.S.
-Maintaining stockpiles
-Is the stalled supplemental aid package DOA?

By
Comments (10)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    TheMatMan

    Good interview overall. Packed a lot into 32 minutes.

    I'm going to preface my next statement by stating I'm fully in support of US aid to Ukraine, and I wish we were doing more. I've heard this, "Most of the aid is money actually spent in the US" argument from several places, such as a few times from Jonah. That rings hollow to me as it's just a reframed broken window fallacy. I guess it's easy to say in under 10 seconds, but The Dispatch should by making the 10 minute argument in favor of military aid to Ukraine.

    Collapse
  2. A.Matsil

    Really interesting and informative interview. Thank you, Mary.

    Collapse
  3. Hcreedlaw

    Did I miss the link to the Sunday morning Dispatch Live? Did it happen this morning?

    Collapse
  4. Payette

    Thank you, Mary. Good interview with helpful information. A follow-up would be useful as to why many on the current right object to supplying the Ukrainians with equipment.

    These half-hour podcast interviews (usually on the weekends) are good and perhaps should be advertised a bit more on the Dispatch. Definitely worth your time!

    Collapse
  5. Bigdonmck

    That was some good stuff. Very good stuff. Thanks, Mary.
    Especially liked the explanation of the dilemma the military industrial complex faces in handling long term contracts and supplying munitions in a world of extreme differences of supply and demand. Kudos to your guest.

    Collapse
  6. Phillyex1

    This was very well done. One question I wish had been asked, when talking about the burn rate of munitions, is “Are the Ukrainians using them efficiently?” It’s easy to fire off 100,000 rounds but did you hit anything? How good is the Ukrainian targeting? Is it like on a TV show where a guy empties a whole clip from an automatic weapon and nobody got shot?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Addicus

      According to Pentagon estimates, the Russians have suffered over 315,000 casualties. So the answer to your question would appear to be, yes. Yes they are hitting things.

      Collapse
      1. Phillyex1

        Well, if they are firing 200,000 artillery rounds a month for two years as claimed, that’s not a great killing ratio. That’s one casualty for every eight rounds and we’re not talking 6.25 NATO rounds here. We’re talking big stuff. And how many small caliber rounds have they fired. I’m not suggesting an answer but the claim that there have been 315,000 Russian casualties doesn’t actually answer my question.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Addicus

          The US and EU have given very few precision rounds so most of the rounds fired are likely standard DPICM rounds.

          For historical context, artillery usage during another trench warfare type conflict would be WW1. It's estimated that more than 1 Billion rounds were fired over the 64 months of the war. That works out to 15,625,000+ per month. Given that's all sides but still, a burn rate of 200,000 shells pre month is only 1% of the WW1 average.

          Another way to look at it, the US has given 142 M777 and 90 M109 artillery pieces to Ukraine. Assume the EU has given about the same. 200,000 rounds per month only equals 15 rounds/tube per day. That's not much.

          War uses a lot of ammo, uses a lot a material, and kills a lot of men.

          Collapse
          1. Phillyex1

            Thanks

            Collapse