• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Also can anyone clarify, is this a proper windfall tax or not, because it seems to only be on renewables and nuclear, which doesn't seem like a proper windfall tax.
 
Reiser99 said:
Also can anyone clarify, is this a proper windfall tax or not, because it seems to only be on renewables and nuclear, which doesn't seem like a proper windfall tax.
Click to expand...
It would make sense windfall is based on unexpected profits so people who wholesale gas prices haven't skyrocketed.
 
Reiser99 said:
Also can anyone clarify, is this a proper windfall tax or not, because it seems to only be on renewables and nuclear, which doesn't seem like a proper windfall tax.
Click to expand...
Probably confused windfall with wind turbine.
 
I'm no military guru but was curious to know (besides the political/security aspects of opposing and restricting Russia's aggression) what do countries like the UK get in return for supplying arms and equipment to Ukraine? I read somewhere that France has provided considerably less than the UK. I'm wondering why there is such disparity between NATO members and what do countries like the UK and US, who appear to be providing the most, get in return?

Are donors partially reimbursed by NATO (to which member states contribute financially) or will Ukraine repay those countries who helped them in future years? When it reaches a point where parts of Ukraine need to be rebuilt perhaps the countries that provided the most help will be awarded contracts to rebuild infrastructure etc? I can imagine arms manufacturing companies are making huge sums of money constantly replenishing stocks.
 
Last edited:
Off the top of my head, and as a fellow military layman...

Popularity.
Funding for the military industrial complex.
Updating their own stocks.

Softpower / future goodwill from Ukraine, and other Eastern European countries.
 
The Oggmonster said:
I'm no military guru but was curious to know (besides the political/security aspects of opposing and restricting Russia's aggression) what do countries like the UK get in return for supplying arms and equipment to Ukraine? I read somewhere that France has provided considerably less than the UK. I'm wondering why there is such disparity between NATO members and what do countries like the UK and US, who appear to be providing the most, get in return?

Are donors partially reimbursed by NATO (to which member states contribute financially) or will Ukraine repay those countries who helped them in future years? When it reaches a point where parts of Ukraine need to be rebuilt perhaps the countries that provided the most help will be awarded contracts to rebuild infrastructure etc? I can imagine arms manufacturing companies are making huge sums of money constantly replenishing stocks.
Click to expand...
Actually per % of GDP I believe Poland and the Baltic countries are the biggest NATO contributers to Ukraine and they hopefully get a defeated and less aggressive Russia by the time this concludes.

Much of the military equipment provided by NATO counties is also obsolete, don't get too carried away with Javelins and HIMARs. Look at vehicles like like the German Geapods, the American M113s and the British Spartans that were built in Coventry in the 70s. This kit costs a fair bit to dispose of or store so it's cheaper to give it away.

I believe NATO and in particular the US are using this war as a staging and testing ground as well as a massive advert for it's arms and tech sectors. Much of the money it's spending on training and advising will becoming out of the aid packaging as well as replacement of equipment they have supplied. When Biden says 40 billion aid package, what he really means is 40 billion on the military industrial complex and a way for the military to keep its budgets. They also get to show off and test their latest tech on a battlefield which is a way of showing geopolitical rivals like China and potential tech customers how good US/NATO equipment is. Imagine how many countries will be looking to buy western weapons now that they have been shown to be superior to Eastern ones?

Ukraine is also rich in natural resources particularly gas, given how much Asia is now consuming gas it makes sense to secure sources in Europe and Russia has proved problematic in its supply and in the way it behaves "here is our gas but we are going to cyber attack your healthcare system". I think people put up with Russia because they had too as getting to close to Ukraine would have ****** the Russians off but now that cat is out the bag everyone is piling in to side with Ukraine.

Also France have supplied some very state of the art artillery but they do tend to be anti NATO.
 
On the subject of France, didn't someone already post that while France has given less in terms of volume, it's given just as much or at least more in terms of quality and cost.
 
Tallshort said:
Much of the military equipment provided by NATO counties is also obsolete, don't get too carried away with Javelins and HIMARs. Look at vehicles like like the German Geapods, the American M113s and the British Spartans that were built in Coventry in the 70s. This kit costs a fair bit to dispose of or store so it's cheaper to give it away.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was meaning by "updating their own stocks" - though that would appear to be going further than I thought.

Get rid of the old, and buy in new - so those winter clothings from Germany, Spain and Canada are likely 10 years old, and give those countries an opportunity to get brand new stuff in.
The tanks and planes etc donated by Lithuania or Poland, are Soviet era kit being replaced by modern, NATO stuff.

I'd put money on it that the rations and medical supplies provided by NATO members are at (or slightly beyond) their use-by date (which is fine, Ukraine won't be putting these into storage, but using them in the field)
 
Yeah, I was reading an article the other day about America's contributions and it said the same thing,
It's much nicer to say "$5bn in military aid given to Ukraine" than "$5bn given to US arms contractors to replace ageing kit in storage"
 
Which Tyler said:
Exactly what I was meaning by "updating their own stocks" - though that would appear to be going further than I thought.

Get rid of the old, and buy in new - so those winter clothings from Germany, Spain and Canada are likely 10 years old, and give those countries an opportunity to get brand new stuff in.
The tanks and planes etc donated by Lithuania or Poland, are Soviet era kit being replaced by modern, NATO stuff.

I'd put money on it that the rations and medical supplies provided by NATO members are at (or slightly beyond) their use-by date (which is fine, Ukraine won't be putting these into storage, but using them in the field)
Click to expand...
British army rations never had a sell by date and it's not like the taste ever got worse over time..
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
7 8 9
Replies
163
Views
8K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
5K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
27 28 29
Replies
567
Views
25K
McTallshort
McTallshort
T
Is anyone using a club management system for their local club?
Replies
0
Views
913
Try-Hard Tackler
T
M
Had to stare someone down at a red light
Replies
6
Views
1K
The Seeker
The Seeker

Latest posts

Top