U.S. Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

[astralis]

heh heh. the funny thing about THAT is the Japanese -politicians- are more enthusiastic about defending Taiwan than the Japanese military.

if you look at Japanese military acquisitions, the way they think about defending Taiwan in the future is through long-range strike (ie hitting the PRC). and that by itself is a sea-change from their old stance of simply protecting US logistics.

either way Taipei has no say in refusing or accepting Japanese help.

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't know, as the Americans haven't actually coerced Japanese help....

After Being Silent For Decades, Japan Now Speaks Up About Taiwan — And Angers China : NPR

[astralis]

What's Taipei's excuse for refusing American coerced Japanese help?

I don't know, as the Americans haven't actually coerced Japanese help....

[Monash]

I think they will. It's a Fincantieri-owned yard and a Fincantieri design....and the construction timeline is extremely conservative. They're taking a crawl-walk-run approach because the Zumwalt and LCS fiasco proved that the immediately-leap-off-a-cliff approach was slightly inadvisable

True, but I can't help noting that one of the LCS designs was based on an Australian company's (Austral) design and they to purchased a shipyard on the east coast as one or the conditions for being awarded the contract so that everything was still made in America. Not withstanding the fact the LCS was doomed at the concept phase (that and the inability of other contractors to produce the all essential modular 'kit's that were supposed to be the centerpiece of the whole concept) 'made in America' might be no guarantee of on time and on budget delivery. It never is wherever you build warships.

Case in point we had the our two LHDs built in Spain by Navantia based on one of their tested designs and they have been plagued by ongoing engine/electric generator problems almost from day one. I believe we are only now getting on top of the issues.

[TopHatter]

Biden asks for $20.6 billion for Ukraine as counteroffensive sputters
The United States has spent tens of billions to help Kyiv but is calling for more aid

President Biden on Thursday asked Congress to approve $20.6 billion in additional funding for Ukraine, as that country’s military struggles to achieve a decisive victory in its counteroffensive against Russia.

In a letter to lawmakers, the White House Office of Management and Budget asked for $13 billion in new military aid and $8.5 billion in additional economic, humanitarian and security assistance for Ukraine and other countries affected by the war. The funding request also includes other forms of assistance for Ukraine.

The White House also is seeking more than $12 billion for disaster relief and other emergency domestic funds, including hurricanes, as well as tens of millions of dollars to boost pay for firefighters on the front lines of the wildfires that have hit many parts of the country.

In total, Biden is asking Congress for about $40 billion in new spending.

The funding tied to the war in Ukraine — now nearing its 18th month — is likely to prove the most controversial item. The United States has already directed more than $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, including more than $40 billion in direct military assistance. That is more than any other country. Biden has vowed that the U.S. government will support Ukraine “as long as it takes,” but Western allies face difficult questions about the state of the war effort, with Ukrainian forces bogged down in the east despite new Western weapons and training.

“The administration is requesting supplemental security, economic, and humanitarian assistance funding that would support Ukraine, as well as countries and vulnerable properties worldwide impacted by Russia’s unprovoked and brutal invasion of Ukraine,” Shalanda Young, the White House budget director, said in the request.

Senate leaders of both parties are expected to support the president’s request. Scores of far-right members in the House of Representatives have made it clear that they would oppose any new funding to Ukraine, but a large majority of Republicans still want to ensure that some money is sent to aid Ukraine and NATO allies, particularly ahead of a blistering winter that could slow the counteroffensive even more.

“What you hear from lawmakers is: Yeah, we should support this. But there are some already saying ‘no,’ and some saying, ‘This can’t go on forever,’ which is a reflection of the American public,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank.

Ukraine’s government faces a budget deficit of about $40 billion for this year, but that is likely to be mostly covered by aid from Europe, the United States and other organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, according to Oleg Ustenko, an economic adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But that does not resolve what the Ukrainians will do to make up the deficit next year, should the war continue. And tens of billions of dollars in damage to critical infrastructure has gone unrepaired, including for Ukraine’s electrical grid and hospitals. The World Bank has estimated that rebuilding Ukraine after the war could cost as much as $350 billion.

“There’s still a question mark of what the state of our economy will be next year. If the situation is more or less on the same level as now, we could be required again to need the same budgetary and financial support,” Ustenko said.

Beyond the immediate deficit, Ukraine’s government has an estimated $750 billion in direct economic costs from the war, which could be as high as $1 trillion if indirect costs are added. Ustenko added that Western allies should start transferring billions in frozen assets from Russia’s central bank to Ukraine. Some experts have raised questions about the legality of such a maneuver.

“This money should not just be coming from our allies,” Ustenko said. “This money should be coming from the frozen assets of Russia. They have to compensate us. Kremlin is fully responsible for all damage. Therefore even from the point of view of justice, that is very important.”

NewRussian attacks on Ukraine’s grain exports are compounding the economic challenges. Moscow’s forces have attacked grain storage facilities in July and August, following Russia’s decision to terminate a deal that allowed Ukraine to export grain by sea during wartime. Grain is one of the major Ukrainian exports and a key source of revenue for its government, said Simon Johnson, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied the economicimpact of the country’s grain industry.

“Putin is playing at the levels of billions of dollars, all while trying to convince the West it’s not worth their while to stay with the Ukrainians long enough to evict the Russians from Ukraine,” Johnson said.

It is unclear how the House will handle the Ukraine funding request. The GOP-controlled chamber is already bracing for a major fight over government spending when Congress returns in September, as far-right members continue to push for significant budget cuts. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) vowed in June that he would not support any supplemental funding, saying aid for Ukraine should go through the regular appropriations process.

“A Republican-led House will not rubber-stamp any blank-check funding requests," a McCarthy spokesman said. "Rather, the administration’s emergency funding requests must be reviewed and scrutinized on their merits consistent with the practice and principles of our majority.”

Asking to tack on Ukraine funding to a must-pass funding bill would probably only inflame the House Freedom Caucus and its allies further — and they’ve already expressed a willingness to shut down the government in pursuit of spending cuts. Republicans can only lose four lawmakers within their ranks to pass legislation through their slim majority without Democrats’ help.

Two people familiar with the current thinking among Republican members of the Appropriations Committee, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss legislative strategy, think that the supplemental request would best be tacked onto another must-pass item: the yearly flood insurance reauthorization program, which could put pressure on Republicans to go along with it rather than deny aid to states affected by disasters this summer.
_________

[TopHatter]

Yep, that's going to help in the long run but it will be interesting to see if the US Shipyards that won the contract are able to deliver a proven design on time and on budget.

I think they will. It's a Fincantieri-owned yard and a Fincantieri design....and the construction timeline is extremely conservative. They're taking a crawl-walk-run approach because the Zumwalt and LCS fiasco proved that the immediately-leap-off-a-cliff approach was slightly inadvisable

The question mark for me is the (still-hypothetical) second yard. But if the slow-and-steady-wins-the-race approach is applied there too, I think we'll be ok.

[Monash]

And, as I noted in my post above, outfits like Fincantieri are clearly bulking up to support those new frigates once they're built.

Yep, that's going to help in the long run but it will be interesting to see if the US Shipyards that won the contract are able to deliver a proven design on time and on budget.

[Officer of Engineers]

very easy -- what would Taiwan offer the South Koreans or Japanese for their direct defense?

the best (and the most) they can offer is a negative incentive. "Help our defense or else the PRC will be sitting on top of your supply lines later."

Those are reasons why Seoul and Tokyo don't want to ally with Taipei. What's Taipei's excuse for refusing American coerced Japanese help?

[astralis]

And what's Taipei's excuse?

very easy -- what would Taiwan offer the South Koreans or Japanese for their direct defense?

the best (and the most) they can offer is a negative incentive. "Help our defense or else the PRC will be sitting on top of your supply lines later."

[TopHatter]

The current frigate program for instance which is after all based on a (modified) foreign design is an example of a program that could at least in part have been filled by foreign firms in competition against domestic ones.

And, as I noted in my post above, outfits like Fincantieri are clearly bulking up to support those new frigates once they're built.

[Monash]

It's not just politically impossible, it's probably impossible. This isn't Silicon Valley, it's complicated high-level manufacturing. You can't just snap your fingers and have demonstrated capability overnight. To even get a lot of domestic shipbuilders to bid would require months of work to bring them to a level to meet government contracting requirements.

There are numerous foreign shipbuilders who have decades of experience in completing naval contracts and any new ship building program is years in the making before the keel of the first in class is even laid. All of which means there is both time and capability available, what is lacking is the political will. The current frigate program for instance which is after all based on a (modified) foreign design is an example of a program that could at least in part have been filled by foreign firms in competition against domestic ones. Carriers and subs are off such a list but just about anything else the could be tendered out.

[Officer of Engineers]

Taipei-Seoul-Tokyo alliance wouldn’t happen anyway, because Seoul and Tokyo both know that the only way they get into a fight with China is because of (Beijing’s interest in) Taipei.

having said that, the current Japanese and South Korean administrations at least are TRYING to cooperate, to include knocking heads in their own recalcitrant militaries to get them to work a little bit together.

And what's Taipei's excuse?

[astralis]

Taipei-Seoul-Tokyo alliance wouldn’t happen anyway, because Seoul and Tokyo both know that the only way they get into a fight with China is because of (Beijing’s interest in) Taipei.

having said that, the current Japanese and South Korean administrations at least are TRYING to cooperate, to include knocking heads in their own recalcitrant militaries to get them to work a little bit together.

[Officer of Engineers]

Name me one country other than the US who is legally obligated to help Taiwan?

The alliance that would actually SCARE Beijing is Taipei-Seoul-Tokyo and that ain't happening. They hate each other more than they fear Beijing.

[rj1]

That's the case in a lot of places, not just the US.

In Germany pretty much all Bundeswehr-owned naval repair facilities in the Baltic were closed down around 2013-2015, with the equipment like float docks and float cranes - granted, all from the 60s - at the time sold off either to private shipyards or donated to other countries (in particular in North Africa). It only took them a few years to notice by around 2018 that that was a pretty bad idea, because after some smaller shipyards went into insolvency there were suddenly exactly zero repair facilities left in the Baltic in German waters. Ships had to be re-based over to the North Sea coast for every single small repair.

They bought an insolvent shipyard last year to rectify that situation. For the sole reason that it came with a drydock. At least it was relatively cheap.

Yeah, so someone explain what the f#ck is the West anymore in foreign policy and geopolitics. We have no one that actually wants to send troops into conflict and we have no defense manufacturing capability except in one country the U.S. I seriously wonder why Germany's voice in foreign affairs should be considered more than Turkey's. Turkey does stuff and take actions sufficient for their own defense.

"Don't you dare China attempt to send troops into Taiwan. We will retaliate."

"You and what army?" The Poles? The Ukrainians? Americans aren't going. The citizens don't want to. Rumsfeld deserved what happened following his misguided approach to war of as small an effort to achieve the objective as possible, but his philosophy apparently still has a lot of adherents. You see it with Ukraine. After some hmming and hawing we'll give you equipment but we're not going to actually put boots on the ground in this conflict we call very important to the global order. There's this Rumsfeldian desire in the high-level thinkers of both parties and in other NATO countries that we can hit a button and conduct conflicts with nothing being asked of us as far as greater commitment. Then you get to the Europeans. Does anyone think the Europeans are going to take massive steps toward forming their own defense now that they've used up all their inventory? That would require a coordinated procurement plan they all agree on (putting the French against the Eastern Europeans because the Eastern Europeans want to buy American and the French want to buy French) as well as actually spending the money to buy new equipment and then train personnel how to use it. I'll believe it when I see it.