[ATTACH=full]435586[/ATTACH] “Washington’s motives are crystal clear,” Volodin wrote on Telegram, suggesting that lend-leasing to Ukraine “would allow to increase the profits of American defense corporations by several times.”
The parliament speaker recalled the events of World War II when the Soviet Union had received military hardware from the US under a similar lend-lease scheme. “It was described as help from the allies,” but the USSR, which lost 27 million lives fighting the Nazis, had to return those debts for decades, among other things, sending its platinum, gold and timber to America as part of mutual settlements, he said. “The payments were only completed 61 years after the Great Victory, in 2006,” Volodin pointed out.
Lend-lease is basically a commodity loan, and “not a cheap one,” he warned. “Many future generations of Ukrainian citizens are going to pay” for the weapons, ammo and food supplies delivered by Washington.
Bonobos should stop sensationalism. Even if Kenya wanted a commodity based Lend Lease program which valuable commodity does Kenya have to back such a loan? Kama hujui kenye unaongelea nyamaza tu.
Only 10% of that multi billion dollar military aid will arrive in Ukraine. 90% itanyofolewa na American defense contractors, lobbyists, banks, consultants, intermediaries, and other busybodies. Alafu Ukraine’s corrupt officials wanyofoe tena half of the 10% that will actually make it to Ukraine. Ukrainian soldiers in the field watupiwe whatever remains. Na watalipa 100% plus interest.
We dont have to pay by commodity literally, it is now done via multinational companies getting favourable compettive edge preferences from government of the day,make profit and repatriate back to london or washington.
Foreign multinationals already have massive competitive advantages over local firms even without favorable legislation. Without protectionist policies most Kenyan industries would be wiped out overnight.
Data from the Treasury indicates that Kenya does not owe Britain as of June (2020) compared to a debt of Sh35 million in May and Sh1.4 billion in 2015.
The war between Russia and Ukraine is swiftly evolving into a war between Russia and NATO. In one respect, this is good: It gives Ukraine a higher chance of repelling Moscow’s invasion and even winning. In another respect, it is risky: The wider the war spreads, and the more Russia seems to be losing, the more compelled Vladimir Putin may feel to lash out with extreme violence.
Biden invoked the World War II-era Lend-Lease Act to speed up the transfer of weapons from the US military’s stockpile. That legislation authorized the lending of military equipment to foreign countries “whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.”
There it is, then, in Biden’s own proclamation: The defense of Ukraine is “vital to the defense of the United States.”
This shift in the West’s approach to the war was first signaled on Monday when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said the U.S. goals in the war were not only to protect Ukraine as a democratic, sovereign country but also to “weaken” Russia as a military power. This has been obvious for some time, but even some U.S. officials were surprised to hear Austin express the fact so explicitly.