makesyoudownvote

I agree he's wrong.

It's not "very small" though. Especially when you ran it in comparison to the wall. It's 5 times as much as the wall, 10 times as high of a rate ($75 billion in 2 years vs 15 billion in 4, (actually it was only 12 billion in 4, the other 3 is since 2020 but that's really splitting hairs)).

If 15 billion is a lot then 75 billion is a fuck ton. That's the comparison being made. It's quite simple, it's 5 times as much in half the time!

But more than that, Ukraine spending doesn't benefit us as much as the wall. I know that sounds silly, because of the way the information has been presented, and in a small way I will even contradict that statement, but basically Russia was either always going to win or always going to lose against Ukraine. If Russia had utilized their remaining strength well enough, it would have been over before US assistance would have meant much. But Russia hesitated and poorly strategized. Ukraine in the meanwhile played it's hand masterfully, especially when it came to garnering foreign aid and support. But Russia is basically on a death keel as a superpower. They haven't been nearly as strong as they convinced the world they were since the 80s. Our support while meaningful, in some ways, really doesn't amount to too much in terms of protecting us UNLESS the ultimate outcome is a de-nuclearization of Russia AND none of those nukes go to China.

The wall on the other hand doesn't STOP illegal immigration, but it severely limits the easiest route that is the most difficult to control. There are several ways this is one of our biggest security flaws. It's not just about invading army's or conventional warfare. It could be espionage, or mass migration. Both could easily cripple us. The border wall makes both of these orders of magnitude more difficult and will continue to do so for a century or more.

If this was some sort of ploy by China and Russia together as I believe it initially was. China stands to benefit even by not committing the way I believe they had agreed to to Putin. Every piece of tech that gets used in this war becomes less useful in later combat. China gets to learn from it's usage, find new weaknesses and exploits. They get to do this while benefiting from dirt cheap fuel supplies from Russia sold to finance their war and keep some form of trade going.

Lastly only 46 billion of that 75 came from military budget. 29 billion came from other government branches.

So basically it's the equivalent of maybe spending 1 billion to break Russia, 10-15 billion in PR with Europe, and the rest we might as well be paying for China to have direct access to our tech. It's overall a poor call strategically.

There are really only three significant benefits.

1. Russia turned out to be even less well equipped than we thought. We got to see Russia play it's hand and though we knew they were bluffing, we didn't know how badly.

2. NATO stands more united than ever... BUT because idiots are shouting that the US isn't giving enough to Ukraine, even though we are objectively giving more than any other country besides Ukraine itself. Because of this the good will PR we bought is largely undone. Most European nations don't look at the numbers and think we are barely giving anything.

3. It destabilizes Russia and embarrasses Putin and his regime. This may end any hope they had for rebuilding the USSR_2.0 and COULD potentially lead to a de-arming of their nuclear weapons. However we are nowhere near that yet, and that really isn't much more likely to happen with 75 billion than it would have been with 1 million.