According to Tucker...yes or no?
Sure don't hear about it anymore.

Hard to say. In war both sides will tend to over report the other sides casualties/losses and underreport their own. One thing I think we can say for sure is that both sides are getting mauled & we should be thankful the US involvement has been so far limited to money & weapons. No troops, at least not publicly or at a level beyond advisor status. Hopefully it stays that way.

What a waste. U.S funded this meat grinder and for what?

So the Big Man can get his 15%.

It's very difficult to say whether funding a war without involving your own troops is a good idea or not, just like it's often hard to say if a given war is truly worthwhile or not. In general, if you're going to be involved in a war and it's possible to get similar results by funding someone else's army without inserting your own then that is probably better. For your country at least. The difficulty is knowing if your country should be involved at all. I think we could agree that at the start of WW2 if it had been possible for the USA to arm Poland and France, and by so doing enable them to fight Hitler on their own without the involvement of US troops then that would have been better for American than our army having to fight Hitler themselves the way we did eventually after he conquered Poland and france. It's possible that's exactly what is happening by the US funding Ukraine now. It's very possible that has Putin succeeded in taking Ukraine quickly and easily that he would simply have moved on to the next target. On the other hand, maybe he wouldn't. There just isn't a good way to know how the what ifs would play out.

Very True Seth

Better then our guys carrying their water that’s one good thing about it.

Seth that is the most common sense thing I have read on here for weeks. How anybody could have a strong opinion on this is beyond me. Unless you can tell the future nobody has any idea what the right thing to do is. I've listened to podcasts both for funding the war and against any involvement. All made good points but again, who is right.

Hoosier 71 we should secure our borders and fix our infrastructure, pay off our debt ECT before throwing the cash at this. My .03. Inflation and all.

The Ukraine is a strange war.
We only hear bits and pieces about it.
Russia killing civilians or Ukrainians killing Russians.
Same with the war in Gaza !
Seems only news we get is news to divide opinion.

I'm of the opinion that helping Ukraine stand up to a bully is morally the right thing to be doing.

The one payment of 87 billion could have given every American adult 2million dollars and still had 86 billion left. That's only one payment that went to them.

It appears to me that we’re only paying for a meat grinder, average age in their forces is 43… they’re out of 18+ year olds. You ready to fight?

I think your math is off.

I get the gist of what you're saying but your math is wrong. To give 2 million to each of the 258 million adults in America would require 516 trillion.

87 billion divided between the adult population of the US would be $337.

It's a war that should never of been.
But it was set up at least 12 years ago.

We've seen more footage out of the gaza/hamas conflict or gang bang shootings that we have out of the russo-ukraine war. I guess we dont have embedded war journalists anymore.

Knowing of what was on Hunter's laptop should give a strong indication that neither our blood nor treasure should be involved in this conflict. That's not even considering the refusal of .gov to secure our borders.

Great theory, if only that is what we were actually doing. What we are doing is making rich corrupt politicians and war mongers even richer. It's a big joke, and the joke is on us.

Think about the hundreds of thousands of people that would still be alive if we hadn't provided more than 100 billion dollars to prolong the war.

Think about the amount of good that money could do right here in the USA.