DeSantis Calls U.S. Support of Ukraine Distraction From More Vital Interests

[Right_in_Virginia]

As for Gov. DeSantis, he’s still young.  I hope he can keep his powder dry until 2028.  But, if he declares now I’m afraid it could damage his political future and any hope for another America First presidency following up PDJT.

DeSantis has been a staunch disciple of Ryan/Bush for his political career ---- swerving into MAGA territory on a hail Mary pass to rescue his losing campaign for Governor in 2018.  Ron is happily back in the bosom of Paul Ryan working to replace Trump and help the GOP dissolve the pesky America First movement.

DeSantis is not America First @aligncare

[Kamaji]

He's wrong.

[Free Vulcan]

If someone finds Ukraine to be not a "vital U.S. interest", I think there's less than a 1% chance they'd find little 'ol Taiwan to be a vital U.S. interest either.

Then they would be myopic pinheads not intelligent enough to make commentary on the issue. By that logic any country Russia could invade would be in our interests, so let's just spread ourselves around trying to hedge them in.

Ukraine has grain and gas, which are far more important to Europe's interests than ours. Yet, they've done little. We've given Ukraine enough money that they could be the third largest army on the planet. It's time to see results.

China meanwhile would control about 75% of the world chip supply if they took over Taiwan successfully. Most of the world's supply chains start in Taiwan and China could shut us down without firing a shot.

Especially since while supporting Ukraine requires only that we provide them with weapons/ammo, supporting Taiwan in a military action against China would require the lives of American sailors, airmen, and troops.

And if you were the C-in-C you might be right. Reality is that the posturing warmongers in the Pentagon are very comfortable getting suckered into sending US troops there. If they go all-in in Ukraine, then they will open the door to China blitzkreiging right on in before we can do anything about it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We've given Ukraine enough money that they could be the third largest army on the planet.

As of January, we'd given the Ukrainians $26.4B in financial assistance - "money".  That's it.  You said "army", so I'll limit it to ground forces only.  If you include air, naval, etc., forces, the numbers are much larger.

India's army (alone) is over 1.2 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army

China has 977,000 in their ground forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Ground_Force

...and North Korea is third with 950k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army_Ground_Force

So exactly how is Ukraine supposed to build an army of 950,001 men with less than $30B?

It's time to see results.

  Results?  Increasing numbers of destroyed Russian vehicles, ships, aircraft, etc. etc. have been staring us in the face for a year.  The fact that Russian troops were defeated in their drive on Kyiv, pushed back from Kharkiv, were forced to retreat from Chernihiv, beaten in Kherson, and now are still stuck trying to take the Donbass from whence they started, more than a year after they were supposed to be completely defeated, are results.

Reality is that the posturing warmongers in the Pentagon are very comfortable getting suckered into sending US troops there. If they go all-in in Ukraine, then they will open the door to China blitzkreiging right on in before we can do anything about it.

Well, sure, oppose the sending of U.S. troops into that fight all you wish.  I'm right there with you.  But that's a different issue than giving them the armaments to do the fighting themselves.

[aligncare]

DeSantis has been a staunch disciple of Ryan/Bush for his political career ---- swerving into MAGA territory on a hail Mary pass to rescue his losing campaign for Governor in 2018.  Ron is happily back in the bosom of Paul Ryan working to replace Trump and help the GOP dissolve the pesky America First movement.

DeSantis is not America First @aligncare

Alright, I admit I don’t know much about the Florida governor.  But, if DeSantis were on a presidential ballot against a democrat, I would still vote for him, however reluctant I was, because I don’t believe in ever withholding my vote just because my guy didn’t make it.  However tattered the GOP is, it’s still a better thing to do than putting in with democrats.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Alright, I admit I don’t know much about the Florida governor.  But, if DeSantis were on a presidential ballot against a democrat, I would still vote for him, however reluctant I was, because I don’t believe in ever withholding my vote just because my guy didn’t make it.  However tattered the GOP is, it’s still a better thing to do than putting in with democrats.

If this works for you, fair enough @aligncare

But there are others who cannot --- yet again --- vote for the wrong candidate because he's somehow, someway, hopefully, slightly better than the other guy. 

They're done with the Bushes, McCains and Romneys of the Republican Party.  Going backwards is simply not an option   

[corbe]

   Living in a RED State affords me the luxury of never voting for the same puke the GOP offers up every election cycle.

[aligncare]

If this works for you, fair enough @aligncare

But there are others who cannot --- yet again --- vote for the wrong candidate because he's somehow, someway, hopefully, slightly better than the other guy. 

They're done with the Bushes, McCains and Romneys of the Republican Party.  Going backwards is simply not an option   

You understand, my response was predicated on my limited knowledge of what DeSantis’ articulated core beliefs are, and what, if any, actions he has taken in defending or advancing his convictions.  I may still have more to learn about him.  Hey, I’m still a Trump guy—he’s the necessary big dog in the coming political and cultural fight.  That’s my core belief.

[Free Vulcan]

As of January, we'd given the Ukrainians $26.4B in financial assistance - "money".  That's it.  You said "army", so I'll limit it to ground forces only.  If you include air, naval, etc., forces, the numbers are much larger.

India's army (alone) is over 1.2 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army

China has 977,000 in their ground forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Ground_Force

...and North Korea is third with 950k

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army_Ground_Force

So exactly how is Ukraine supposed to build an army of 950,001 men with less than $30B?

Seems to be more:

What is the US getting in Ukraine for $100 billion?: https://news.yahoo.com/us-getting-ukraine-100-billion-213700721.html

Thomas Massie: $100B for Ukraine Could Have Given an Extra $200M to Every Congressional District in U.S.: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/12/28/thomas-massie-100b-for-ukraine-could-have-given-an-extra-200m-to-every-congressional-district-in-u-s/

  Results?  Increasing numbers of destroyed Russian vehicles, ships, aircraft, etc. etc. have been staring us in the face for a year.  The fact that Russian troops were defeated in their drive on Kyiv, pushed back from Kharkiv, were forced to retreat from Chernihiv, beaten in Kherson, and now are still stuck trying to take the Donbass from whence they started, more than a year after they were supposed to be completely defeated, are results.

Well, sure, oppose the sending of U.S. troops into that fight all you wish.  I'm right there with you.  But that's a different issue than giving them the armaments to do the fighting themselves.

Except for China, those countries you listed spend less than we sent Ukraine, including Russia. Why are they not at the gates of Moscow?

I wouldn't put it past these jackweeds to get us full bore into Ukraine to make it easy for China to accomplish their goals.

[Fishrrman]

Morgan sez it:

[Fishrrman]

Vulcan fired off with:
"China meanwhile would control about 75% of the world chip supply if they took over Taiwan successfully"

Every time I see this statistic mentioned (Taiwan's dominance in chip making), all I can think is, "why aren't WE building the plants now that will take their place in the future?"

Remember the argument made by the leftists during the obama rule that drilling new oil wells would take years and not bring prices down?

One other thought regarding China v. Taiwan:
I reckon that before it would let itself be destroyed by a Chinese attack, the Taiwanese might seek to "make some kind of deal" with the mainland for a "peaceful, extended absorption" (for lack of a better term). I believe Taiwan actually has considerable investment already within mainland China.

The CCP might actually be willing to deal, as well.
Unlike us, they think in terms of decades as to reaching their goals.

[Hoodat]

DeSantis has been a staunch disciple of Ryan/Bush for his political career

A lie.  One of many.

(What once were vices are now habits.)

[Hoodat]

Here's what they said:

Thank you, @mountaineer

Here is DeSantis' response:

“While the U.S. has many vital national interests – securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Communist Party – becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them. The Biden administration’s virtual “blank check” funding of this conflict for “as long as it takes,” without any defined objectives or accountability, distracts from our country’s most pressing challenges.

Without question, peace should be the objective. The U.S. should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders.  F-16s and long-range missiles should therefore be off the table. These moves would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict and drawing us closer to a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable.

A policy of “regime change” in Russia (no doubt popular among the DC foreign policy interventionists) would greatly increase the stakes of the conflict, making the use of nuclear weapons more likely.  Such a policy would neither stop the death and destruction of the war, nor produce a pro-American, Madisonian constitutionalist in the Kremlin. History indicates that Putin’s successor, in this hypothetical, would likely be even more ruthless.  The costs to achieve such a dubious outcome could become astronomical.   

The Biden administration’s policies have driven Russia into a de facto alliance with China. Because China has not and will not abide by the embargo, Russia has increased its foreign revenues while China benefits from cheaper fuel. Coupled with his intentional depletion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and support for the Left’s Green New Deal, Biden has further empowered Russia’s energy-dominated economy and Putin’s war machine at Americans’ expense.

Our citizens are also entitled to know how the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being utilized in Ukraine.

Paragraph 1 - Agree.  This is more an indictment against current US policy than a withdrawal of support for Ukraine.

Paragraph 2 - Disagree somewhat with the second half of the second sentence.  The rest is OK.

Paragraph 3 - Agree.  This is more criticism of current regime policy.

Paragraph 4 - Agree.

Paragraph 5 - Agree.


The policies of the current US regime does not equate to military victory.  This regime is purposely withholding military assistance that is crucial for a successful Ukrainian defense, while at the same time pouring untold billions down whatever money-laundering holes they can come up with.  DeSantis is criticizing current US policy and rightfully so.

[Free Vulcan]

Vulcan fired off with:
"China meanwhile would control about 75% of the world chip supply if they took over Taiwan successfully"

Every time I see this statistic mentioned (Taiwan's dominance in chip making), all I can think is, "why aren't WE building the plants now that will take their place in the future?"

Remember the argument made by the leftists during the obama rule that drilling new oil wells would take years and not bring prices down?

One other thought regarding China v. Taiwan:
I reckon that before it would let itself be destroyed by a Chinese attack, the Taiwanese might seek to "make some kind of deal" with the mainland for a "peaceful, extended absorption" (for lack of a better term). I believe Taiwan actually has considerable investment already within mainland China.

The CCP might actually be willing to deal, as well.
Unlike us, they think in terms of decades as to reaching their goals.

They are supposedly, but I think they take 3-4 years to build. Let's hope the clock doesn't run out before that happens.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Seems to be more:

What is the US getting in Ukraine for $100 billion?: https://news.yahoo.com/us-getting-ukraine-100-billion-213700721.html

Thomas Massie: $100B for Ukraine Could Have Given an Extra $200M to Every Congressional District in U.S.: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/12/28/thomas-massie-100b-for-ukraine-could-have-given-an-extra-200m-to-every-congressional-district-in-u-s/

You mentioned the amount of "money" given to them, and that $100B includes not only equipment and supplies, but equipment and supplies that have only been promised in the future but not yet delivered.  The amount of actual "money" would be the financial support, and that's less than $30B.  So unless you're talking about sending stockpiled 155mm artillery shells and anti-tank systems to each congressional district, the actual cash is the relevant number.

But even if you ignore cash/equipment distinction, we've still only actually sent them a total of about $75B. 

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

That still doesn't get you in the universe of the third largest army in the world.  Our army -- which is less than half the size of the third largest army in the world -- spends $75B on operations and maintenance alone each year.  That excludes acquisition of weapons, etc..
 

Except for China, those countries you listed spend less than we sent Ukraine, including Russia. Why are they not at the gates of Moscow?

Three reasons:

1) Because whatever numbers you're using for military expenditures for those other countries are neither verifiable, nor relevant.  You can't say "we've sent them $50B in American military aid" but then ignore that our equipment is so much more expensive (because we don't have slave labor) and therefore is in far smaller quantities.

2) You're also just looking at annual peacetime operational costs, and not the massive additional cost it would take to buy all the tanks, artillery, etc. to equip those armies in the first place. China (largest army) has 5000 tanks.  India (second largest) has over 4500.  NK, third largest army, has over 6,500 tanks. 

https://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.php

We have sent the Ukrainians literally ZERO tanks.  We've also sent them ZERO combat aircraft, ZERO armored fighting vehicles/armored personnel carriers, and only a few hundred pieces of artillery.  How the hell are they supposed to build the "third largest army in the world" and get to "the gates of Moscow" with no tanks, no combat aircraft, no APC's, and only a few hundred tubes of artillery?  You're a military guy, right?  You have to know that's completely insane.  The stuff we have sent them are generally comparatively high-tech (and expensive) defensive weapons: anti-tank, anti-air, some artillery, along with less glamorous stuff like improved communications/e-warfare gear, command and control stuff, bridging equipment, etc..  It's stuff that was very helpful in stopping the Russian advance, but much less useful retaking ground.  The only stuff they've had for that is their own very-carefully hoarded pre-war equipment, plus the stuff they've captured and repaired to the extent possible.  But that's not nearly enough to get to Moscow, much less make them the third largest army in the world.

3) The annual peacetime operational costs you're using as a baseline ignore that - by far - the most expensive component in Ukraine is keeping them supplied with massive amounts of munitions needed to fight a high-intensity modern war.  And those don't give you a bigger army -- they just let the one you have continue fighting.  That's where most of the military money has actually gone.

Obviously, their normal economy is in a shambles because a good chunk of their most productive land is a war zone.  So just basic things like keeping their people fed, housed, repairing massive, deliberate damage to their infrastructure caused by Russian attacks, etc., also takes money.  We obviously aren't financing all of that ourselves -- that's where the Europeans are helping out more, and obviously the Ukrainian people themselves are doing what they can.  But I think it is somehow being overlooked that Ukraine is essentially in a WW2 total war situations, and that crap isn't cheap.

[massadvj]

I support sending weapons to Ukraine, but only if the Europeans foot the bill.  This is their fight, and we are being played like suckers by the EU, who continue to impose trade restrictions on us and basically screw us every which way they can as we defend them.  I think Trump and DeSantis basically see it this way as well.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I support sending weapons to Ukraine, but only if the Europeans foot the bill.  This is their fight, and we are being played like suckers by the EU, who continue to impose trade restrictions on us and basically screw us every which way they can as we defend them.  I think Trump and DeSantis basically see it this way as well.

The Europeans aren't going to pay us for our sending our munitions, equipment, and supplies to Ukraine, so it ends up in the same place of cutting off Ukraine.

Forgetting the principle of it for a moment, there isn't even a practical way to make that happen.  "Europeans" only act collectively through the EU, which requires unanimity to act.  And there's no way you could ever get every single country in Europe to agree to that.

[massadvj]

The Europeans aren't going to pay us for our sending our munitions, equipment, and supplies to Ukraine, so it ends up in the same place of cutting off Ukraine.

Forgetting the principle of it for a moment, there isn't even a practical way to make that happen.  "Europeans" only act collectively through the EU, which requires unanimity to act.  And there's no way you could ever get every single country in Europe to agree to that.

The EU as an entity imposes tariffs and other trade barriers against us. They don't seem to have much of a problem acting in unanimity when it comes to taking advantage of us. So we pay their taxes AND defend them.

[Free Vulcan]

You mentioned the amount of "money" given to them, and that $100B includes not only equipment and supplies, but equipment and supplies that have only been promised in the future but not yet delivered.  The amount of actual "money" would be the financial support, and that's less than $30B.  So unless you're talking about sending stockpiled 155mm artillery shells and anti-tank systems to each congressional district, the actual cash is the relevant number.

But even if you ignore cash/equipment distinction, we've still only actually sent them a total of about $75B. 

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

That still doesn't get you in the universe of the third largest army in the world.  Our army -- which is less than half the size of the third largest army in the world -- spends $75B on operations and maintenance alone each year.  That excludes acquisition of weapons, etc..
 
Three reasons:

1) Because whatever numbers you're using for military expenditures for those other countries are neither verifiable, nor relevant.  You can't say "we've sent them $50B in American military aid" but then ignore that our equipment is so much more expensive (because we don't have slave labor) and therefore is in far smaller quantities.

2) You're also just looking at annual peacetime operational costs, and not the massive additional cost it would take to buy all the tanks, artillery, etc. to equip those armies in the first place. China (largest army) has 5000 tanks.  India (second largest) has over 4500.  NK, third largest army, has over 6,500 tanks. 

https://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.php

We have sent the Ukrainians literally ZERO tanks.  We've also sent them ZERO combat aircraft, ZERO armored fighting vehicles/armored personnel carriers, and only a few hundred pieces of artillery.  How the hell are they supposed to build the "third largest army in the world" and get to "the gates of Moscow" with no tanks, no combat aircraft, no APC's, and only a few hundred tubes of artillery?  You're a military guy, right?  You have to know that's completely insane.  The stuff we have sent them are generally comparatively high-tech (and expensive) defensive weapons: anti-tank, anti-air, some artillery, along with less glamorous stuff like improved communications/e-warfare gear, command and control stuff, bridging equipment, etc..  It's stuff that was very helpful in stopping the Russian advance, but much less useful retaking ground.  The only stuff they've had for that is their own very-carefully hoarded pre-war equipment, plus the stuff they've captured and repaired to the extent possible.  But that's not nearly enough to get to Moscow, much less make them the third largest army in the world.

3) The annual peacetime operational costs you're using as a baseline ignore that - by far - the most expensive component in Ukraine is keeping them supplied with massive amounts of munitions needed to fight a high-intensity modern war.  And those don't give you a bigger army -- they just let the one you have continue fighting.  That's where most of the military money has actually gone.

Obviously, their normal economy is in a shambles because a good chunk of their most productive land is a war zone.  So just basic things like keeping their people fed, housed, repairing massive, deliberate damage to their infrastructure caused by Russian attacks, etc., also takes money.  We obviously aren't financing all of that ourselves -- that's where the Europeans are helping out more, and obviously the Ukrainian people themselves are doing what they can.  But I think it is somehow being overlooked that Ukraine is essentially in a WW2 total war situations, and that crap isn't cheap.

No, not a military guy, just a hard nosed, hard working old country boy who doesn't like our leadership peeing on me and calling it rain.

We left enough equipment in Afghanistan to gloriously supply Ukraine for the foreseeable future which was far less in value than what we've given or promised already. For all we've seemed to have given them they don't seem to have alot of - well much of anything. I don't like that discrepancy given the Biden's families dirty hands from involvement in that country, the Rats known campaign kickback schemes, and Zelensky's contrast grifting, not to mention his own stink of corruption.

We are overcommitted to Ukraine beyond all reason, and that telegraphing tells me Biden and the swamp have something grimy and corrupt to protect there. Meanwhile there's been some bleating about China but nothing I'd call tangible. Taiwan is far more strategic to us, but also the entire technofied world - even Europe. You'd think, they'd do more heavy lifting in Ukraine to ultimately protect their own butts from China controlling the supply chains.

Until the pattern starts making alot more sense, I'm going to be very skeptical and critical.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No, not a military guy, just a hard nosed, hard working old country boy who doesn't like our leadership peeing on me and calling it rain.

We left enough equipment in Afghanistan to gloriously supply Ukraine for the foreseeable future which was far less in value than what we've given or promised already.

The problem there was an Afghan army that collapsed almost instantly the moment they didn't have U.S. troops in support.  The Ukrainians have been fighting on their own for more than a year.  Completely different situations.

Like I said, the primary military cost to this point is simply munitions -- things you shoot and need more of once they're gone.  The amount of ammo you consume in a full-out war is just ridiculous.  My artillery battery generally fired maybe 400 rounds per year during peacetime.  We blew through 800 a day during combat.  And that's an expenditure that happens even if you don't take any losses at all.  When you start losing equipment, it has to be repaired/replaced, and that's very expensive.  So it takes a tremendous amount of military supplies to keep operating even if the army stays the same size.

For all we've seemed to have given them they don't seem to have alot of - well much of anything.

What they still have is most of their country, and an army that is degrading the Russian military every single day.   The Ukrainians have destroyed or captured over 1,700 Russian tanks, 2500 other armored fighting vehicles, 150 combat aircraft, 1000 different pieces of artillery and missile launchers, and 12 warships -- including the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.  Not to mention the destroying many of the most elite units in the Russian army, and many of their most experienced/best officers and troops.  That is a catastrophic loss for the Russians.  They're still in there because they're can keep throwing bodies into a meat grinder, but their ability to conduct large scale mobile operations no longer exists.  They're pretty much a WW1 era military at this point.

The military support we've given to Ukraine so far -- which would be only a tiny percentage of the many trillions we spent to defend against the Russians during the Cold War -- has destroyed more Russian military equipment and personnel than all those trillions we spent during the entire decades-long Cold War.  It's the biggest bang for the buck to take down a potential adversary ever, and without the cost of a single U.S. soldier.  For once, we're not propping up some crappy country that really doesn't want to fight, caring more about their freedom than they do themselves.  This time, there is a very brave group of people willing to fight and die for their own freedom, and putting our supplies to better use than we possibly could.

We're also giving China a front row seat to observe that we won't let a country get away with that kind of naked aggression.  Maybe make them think twice before trying anything themselves.

[Timber Rattler]

The problem there was an Afghan army that collapsed almost instantly the moment they didn't have U.S. troops in support.  The Ukrainians have been fighting on their own for more than a year.  Completely different situations.

Like I said, the primary military cost to this point is simply munitions -- things you shoot and need more of once they're gone.  The amount of ammo you consume in a full-out war is just ridiculous.  My artillery battery generally fired maybe 400 rounds per year during peacetime.  We blew through 800 a day during combat.  And that's an expenditure that happens even if you don't take any losses at all.  When you start losing equipment, it has to be repaired/replaced, and that's very expensive.  So it takes a tremendous amount of military supplies to keep operating even if the army stays the same size.

What they still have is most of their country, and an army that is degrading the Russian military every single day.   The Ukrainians have destroyed or captured over 1,700 Russian tanks, 2500 other armored fighting vehicles, 150 combat aircraft, 1000 different pieces of artillery and missile launchers, and 12 warships -- including the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.  Not to mention the destroying many of the most elite units in the Russian army, and many of their most experienced/best officers and troops.  That is a catastrophic loss for the Russians.  They're still in there because they're can keep throwing bodies into a meat grinder, but their ability to conduct large scale mobile operations no longer exists.  They're pretty much a WW1 era military at this point.

The military support we've given to Ukraine so far -- which would be only a tiny percentage of the many trillions we spent to defend against the Russians during the Cold War -- has destroyed more Russian military equipment and personnel than all those trillions we spent during the entire decades-long Cold War.  It's the biggest bang for the buck to take down a potential adversary ever, and without the cost of a single U.S. soldier.  For once, we're not propping up some crappy country that really doesn't want to fight, caring more about their freedom than they do themselves.  This time, there is a very brave group of people willing to fight and die for their own freedom, and putting our supplies to better use than we possibly could.

We're also giving China a front row seat to observe that we won't let a country get away with that kind of naked aggression.  Maybe make them think twice before trying anything themselves.

Well said!

 

[sneakypete]

For me personally, this a deal breaker. I won't vote for anyone who wants to abandon Ukraine to the Russians, in either the primary or the general election.  I'd just leave that race blank.

So looks like I'm on the rather hopeless Team Pompeo at this point.

@Maj. Bill Martin

You are not the only one. I no longer support him as a VP candidate under Trump.

[sneakypete]

He's right. We get ourselves sucked in up to our necks in Ukraine, then China has a cakewalk into Taiwan and controls the world chip supply because we can no longer fight a two front war.

@Free Vulcan

China most likely already controls the chip market. They have contracts to manu.facture pretty much everything we use or eat. Several years ago they bought out a Smithfield Meats meat packing plant in Northern Virginia,and actually disassembled the plant and shipped it to China. They even hired people like the plant manager and the plant chief maintenance man to go to China on a 3 year contract to help them re-assemble the plant  there and put it in operation.

They also make GM automatic transmissions for GM,and who knows what else?

[sneakypete]

The mutual-defense treaty with Taiwan was cancelled by Jimmy Carter in 1980.  That abandonment of our obligation to come to Taiwan's assistance in the event of an invasion was the impetus for Reagan's "No more Taiwans" slogan.  After that treaty was cancelled, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act that said a lot of nice things, but did not and does not contain a provision requiring direct U.S. military assistance in the event Taiwan is attacked by China.  Furthermore, our avowed policy of "strategic ambiguity" means that we have refused to say publicly whether we'd come to Taiwan's defense or not.

One huge justification for alliances is deterrence -- that an enemy who may be willing to go to war against a weak neighbor might not be willing to start a war if that weak neighbor has powerful allies publicly committed to defend it. But no such public commitment exists for Taiwan, which means we're not talking about just promising to defend Taiwan -- we're talking about joining an actual China-Taiwan war after it already has started. 

The bottom line is that Taiwan is in no different position relative to us than was Ukraine.  And if we're not willing to provide weapons only -- no U.S. lives -- to help Ukraine, I can't see any of those same politicians willing to have a direct military confrontation with China over Taiwan, to which we'd have no direct land access and would be in a far more vulnerable military position.   

We let Ukraine die, and the writing is on the wall for the Chinese on where we stand with respect to Taiwan.   Adios, muchachos!  And every single other country around the world that lacks a formal defense pact with us is going to see the writing on the wall as well.  It's handing hegemony to China.

@Maj. Bill Martin

I am in complete agreement.

[sneakypete]

Last I looked Russia was 11th in world GDP, and dropping like a rock.  Chicoms OTOH, are an economic and military  powerhouse, and at least from my perspective would I would prefer keeing our funds and weaponry intact to prepare for conflict with this more formidable foe than weakening ourselves in particpating in a regional proxy war.  NATO and EU by themselves should be able to keep Russia at bay.

This recent Russia-China alliance had intentions that I don't think many Americans really understand.

@catfish1957

Only because greedy CEO's and politicians agreed to let them manufacture so many products used by America. They even make GM transmissions,and own Smithfield Foods. And this ain't even getting into all the farmland they bought around our missile bases in the west.