• FlowVoid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      5% of the defense budget. Which is definitely worth it even for a 10% decrease, since the US usually has to spend more than its adversaries.

      And Russian casualties are generally estimated to be in the range of 100K to 300K, which is more than 10%.

      For comparison, there were about 50K Taliban KIA in Afghanistan, and the US spent a lot more money there.

    • 73 million seconds@infosec.exchange
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think the point here is that the US 5% contribution has single handedly led to Russia losing 50%. The point is that the coalition as a whole are each spending relatively little compared to what the total cost to the Russians is. Ukraine is of course also paying a much heavier price than any of its western supporters who help it keep fighting.

      @Zuberi @Mouette
      @ukraine

      • outstanding_bond@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You and I already agree with the sentiment of this message and interpret this claim charitably, which the intended recipients of this message (US Republicans) will mostly not do. This message needs to convince them, not us, and it would be a far stronger argument if it cited a source.