[Goose]

I think that when we attempt to compare the "dollar value" of military hardware contributions to Ukraine by many nations we are attempting the impossible. Most if not all the numbers we see in the press are the notional acquisition costs of the item. However, many of the items being supplied are "surplus" to current needs and have a net present value that is much lower than what they cost new. In some cases the NPV is negative because these items have to be either stored or scrapped, both of which cost money. In all these cases the items are not going to be replaced or were already going to be replaced. The Strykers recently pledged fall in to the "obsolete and being replaced" category.

There are defense items that do require replacement and therefore have an actual "cost" when supplied to Ukraine. 155 mm ammunition is in that category. However, even that has a shelf life, and ammunition that is approaching EOL that is sent to Ukraine would need replacing "soon" anyway. This is also true of HIMARS rockets. Most if not all of the Javelin missiles we provided were almost new, and have to be replaced at full value as an unanticipated expense.

Since every country providing defense items to Ukraine is in a different position regarding the real "costs" of those items, saying that the US has provided "X times" as much as another nation is probably incorrect. We don't know the actual costs on either end. For sure, the US has provided a much larger quantity of defense items at what is undoubtedly a greater "cost". How much greater is not known IMO.

[Goose]

I think that when we attempt to compare the "dollar value" of military hardware contributions to Ukraine by many nations we are attempting the impossible. Most if not all the numbers we see in the press are the notional acquisition costs of the item. However, many of the items being supplied are "surplus" to current needs and have a net present value that is much lower than what they cost new. In some cases the NPV is negative because these items have to be either stored or scrapped, both of which cost money. In all these cases the items are not going to be replaced or were already going to be replaced. The Strykers recently pledged fall in to the "obsolete and being replaced" category.

There are defense items that do require replacement and therefore have an actual "cost" when supplied to Ukraine. 155 mm ammunition is in that category. However, even that has a shelf life, and ammunition that is approaching EOL that is sent to Ukraine would need replacing "soon" anyway. This is also true of HIMARS rockets. Most if not all of the Javelin missiles we provided were almost new, and have to be replaced at full value as an unanticipated expense.

Since every country providing defense items to Ukraine is in a different position regarding the real "costs" of those items, saying that the US has provided "X times" as much as another nation is probably incorrect. We don't know the actual costs on either end. For sure, the US has provided a much larger quantity of defense items at what is undoubtedly a greater "cost". How much greater is not known IMO.