If anyone here thinks it’s too expensive to back our Allies. You’re going to be shocked at the price if we don’t.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/19/russia-ukraine-war-list-of-key-events-day-664


I haven't really heard much great news about the much-hyped counteroffensive that took place this past spring/summer. It started off slowly, but sounded like Russia had dug in really well and gains were hard to come by. This is turning into a war of attrition, and that's bad news for Ukraine. They are going to need another gamechanger (jets?) in order to break any sort of stalemate and post gains.

The dip in reporting since the beginning of the Israeli conflict does them no favors. Republicans can block Ukrainian aid packages with little accountability (not that they had any before).

Well with the rabble in congress currently, Ukraine is getting let down and belittled for being a GREAT democracy and ally.

It’s beyond shameful. JD Vance has said some very stupid and awful things about it lately as well. Makes me nauseous he got elected.

I haven’t written much on this issue because it really pisses me off. I am not a fan of how this administration has supported this war. We have given millions upon millions of money and weapons that are defensive in nature. This administration is setting up Ukraine to be stuck in a quagmire. If you think it’s our responsibility to defeat Putin then you need to arm the Ukraine with weapons that will force Putin to defend his war at home as well.

I remember back in the day when I served Republicans were all for sending strong messages to the USSR. Democrats were scared to death of a possible nuclear war and fought hard against most of what our Republican presidents tried to do. Now things are reversed and I have a hard time believing the Republicans as a whole in Congress are objecting for anything other than to obstruct. I do think many conservatives are worried about the money being spent and how it is being used. For that they get called Putin lovers.

I think it’s a fair ask to seek more transparency into the funding, but I also think most R’s like Vance, either blatantly lie about how the funding is used, or just use that line as an excuse to obstruct.

I also think we need to do more to arm Ukraine. I don’t think a lot of people understand how important it is for them to stick it to Russia. The problem on that front is that the administration really can’t do more because of the obstruction.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...n-landing-ship-military-says-2024-02-14/

Ukraine has (allegedly) scored another major naval kill.

If GOPers get up off their brains and pass an aid package they might pull out the win. But those Putin/Trump bros just can’t take a shot at their idols.

They’ve turned Reagan in his grave so many times his skeleton is twisted up like a used silly straw or bread tie.

I almost completely agree, but given the ratio of people who passed in the Senate, it is almost completely a House Republican issue. Reagan would absolutely be turning in his grave on this matter.

Trumpworld takes aim at Republicans who supported Ukraine aid push

Senate Republicans who voted to advance aid for Ukraine last week are taking heavy incoming from allies of former President Trump, who are calling them out publicly and threatening primary challenges after they defied Trump’s calls to oppose the package.

Donald Trump Jr., the ex-president’s eldest son, has led the charge against the 22 Republicans who backed the national security supplemental, many of whom are allies of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

He called for Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) to get a primary challenge, and for West Virginia primary voters to reject the gubernatorial bid of Moore Capito, the son of Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).

In another instance, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) a major backer of Trump, took aim at Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of McConnell’s top allies, writing on social media, “Unbelievable that [Cornyn] would stay up all night to defend other countries borders, but not America.”

While some believe the Capito gubernatorial threat, in particular, was a low blow, the frustration from Trump’s orbit is palpable and is laying bare the fissures between it and GOP leadership.

“The last month exposed the problems that come with a GOP leadership team that has no relationships with the likely Republican nominee for president,” one Senate GOP aide said. “It further exposes the disconnect between Republican lawmakers largely in D.C. compared to where our voters are.”

The security bill includes $60 billion in military and economic assistance for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel, along with monies for the Indo-Pacific region and humanitarian purposes.

On top of the Ernst and Capito remarks, Trump Jr. also took aim at Cornyn and Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) — two of the leading contenders to eventually replace McConnell — over their Ukraine aid votes.

But whether the barbs will have much impact is an open question, strategists and aides across the GOP spectrum say.

They are quick to note that being, or not being, in the good graces of the former president is always a fluid situation that can be changed in short order, for better or for worse.

“Trumpworld has a short memory if you get on board,” the Senate GOP aide said.

They also note the insular nature of the Senate, with leadership elections and votes for various bills, including Ukraine aid, rarely determined from outside of the chamber.

“The Senate is notoriously immune from pressure from the outside, and the harder they push the less likely they are to get what they want. The United States Senate is very similar to former President Trump in that way,” one GOP operative told The Hill. “The outside game never works with the Senate.”

Despite Trump’s power and heft with the GOP base, even his voice has limitations sometimes.

For example, Trump and his allies came up empty in the 2022 cycle to recruit a challenger to Thune after he said the 2020 electoral count would go down like a “shot dog.”

The No. 2 Senate Republican ultimately won reelection by 43 points — a larger margin of victory than South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R), a top Trump ally, raked in that year.

Nevertheless, Republicans are taking notice of the threats, with Ernst atop that list.

Trump Jr. also floated Matthew Whitaker, a top Trump backer who served as acting attorney general briefly before William Barr took over the post, to challenge her.

While the Republicans note that one vote — especially aid to Ukraine — likely wouldn’t be enough to bring a member down, it could be a piece to a puzzle.

“One individual vote rarely ends a Senate career, but … what happens when it’s connected to a broader theme is the problem,” a second GOP operative said. “For [Ernst], if you’re within the [Trump] inner circle right now, this is the lady who was with Nikki Haley the night before the [Iowa caucuses], and then she’s doing this; and is she supportive of him? That’s the bigger picture within Trumpworld.”

Despite her appearance with Haley, Ernst remained officially neutral through the caucuses and has declined to weigh in with a primary endorsement since.

Half of Senate GOP leadership has endorsed Trump thus far, including Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who backed him ahead of Iowa, and Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who did so early last year. Sen. Capito endorsed the ex-president in late January.

As for Trump, he has not added his two cents to his eldest son’s remarks. His social media posts reiterated calls for lawmakers to oppose the security spending package and have taken aim at NATO countries he says have not lived up to their obligations. Some of his supporters have also followed his lead and called for the funds to be given as a loan rather than a grant.

The battle over Ukraine funding ratcheted up again Friday after Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader and President Vladimir Putin’s preeminent foe, died in a Russian penal colony, raising more questions about the future of that possible aid to Kyiv.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said is not expected to bring the Senate bill as is up in the House, with a group of bipartisan lawmakers crafting a smaller, more targeted bill instead for possible consideration.

But in a statement reacting to Navalny’s death, he said that while Congress “debates the best path forward to support Ukraine,” the U.S. and its partners “must be using every means available to cut off Putin’s ability to fund his unprovoked war in Ukraine.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...H-zK0VqjgFn9HEmLa1uFQtL2Nr0pPs3tqwDXALq8

Those trumpian supporters of Putin are growing even louder. Well done comrades. Putin thanks you for your support in his takeover of Ukraine.

I was curious so did a quick look. If these numbers aren't right let me know.

US aid to ukraine. About $125B.
Rest of Nato $178B

Nato members are now averaging 2% of their gdp as their contribution as required

By comparison. Cost of the war in Afghanistan .... $2.2 Trillion

I cant actually think of a good reason not to keep funding ukraine. Its money better spent than our own military spending.

Exactly! We spend gobs of money in our defense budget every year to counter Russia and now that we’re actually delivering aid to a proxy who is kicking their butts with it, all of a sudden it’s “We can’t do that!” It makes no sense objectively.

Also, people like Vance have painted a horribly false narrative. We’re not sending Ukraine suitcases of money. We spend the money here on things like materiel and then THAT stuff is what gets sent to Ukraine.

And weren't the high-dollar items (like the tanks) at the end of their lives and going to be replaced by newer revisions anyway?

jc

Imagine threatening a nuclear strike if you lose the war in Ukraine. not that Russian territory got invaded, but that you lost territory in ukraine you tried to annexed.

this is why no country has taken Russia's threats of nuclear strikes seriously. the moment its a tool used for non-defensive purposes, everybody knows you won't launch one.

Yup. Oddly enough, we have been making tanks for kind of no reason for a bunch of years. Basically, keep the production going in case we need them. But now it’s “we can’t give those away!”

Yes, they are meeting their requirements. But that doesn't matter to trump. His zombies believe every word he says. And if for some reason they couldn't meet their requirements? Not only would trump not defend them...... he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country. So much for their false claim that he 's "tough on Russia".

The guy who can't even identify all three branches of Government imparts more wisdom on us.

Just one more brick...

GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville at CPAC: “I haven’t voted for any money to go to Ukraine because I know they can’t win.”
The Recount
Thu, February 22, 2024 at 7:25 AM CST·1 min read



While speaking at CPAC Thursday, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) repeatedly said Ukraine “can’t win” Russia’s war against the country.

“We’re the one that forced this war, because we kept forcing NATO on Ukraine and showing Russia, hey, we’re going to build military bases on your borders. And Putin said, no, no, you’re not going to do that,” Tuberville said at the conservative conference in the D.C. area.

“I haven’t voted for any money to go to Ukraine because I know they can’t win,” the Republican senator continued.

“You hate that they’ve had 300,000 or 400,000 people killed, so — Russians also. You hate that we supported this. We’re pushing them out in front of the guns or out in front of the bus, I guess you’d speak. It’s an atrocity, but they can’t win,” Tuberville added.

Tuberville also later added that “Donald Trump will stop [the war] when he first gets in.”

“He knows there’s no winning for Ukraine. He can work a deal with Putin,” he said.

By the way, that last quote doesn't exactly inspire the "strong leadership" one person asserted in another thread...

No matter how they twist it, delivering Ukraine to Putin is not some noble cause.

Biden administration imposes sanctions aimed at Russia on more than 500 targets for Navalny death and ongoing war in Ukraine



The Biden administration imposed a fresh slate of sanctions on more than 500 targets on Friday in response to the death of Russian opposition figure and outspoken Kremlin critic Alexey Navalny and Moscow’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

The sanctions on the eve of Russia’s two-year war in Ukraine mark the latest move by the administration to levy consequences against Russia amid heightened tensions between the two countries. Friday’s announcement is the largest single day tranche of sanctions since Russian President Vladimir Putin began his war against Ukraine two years ago and is part of the administration’s ongoing efforts to limit the Kremlin’s revenues and hamper Moscow’s ability to source materials for its war.

Speaking from the White House on Friday, President Joe Biden said he imposed the sanctions “in response to Putin’s brutal war of conquest, and in response to Alexey Navalny’s death.”

“Because make no mistake,” Biden added, “Putin is responsible for Alexey’s death.”

Biden on Thursday met with Navalny’s widow and daughter in California. During their meeting, Biden said Friday, he “assured them his legacy will continue to live around the world, and we in the United States are going to continue to ensure that Putin pays a price for his aggression abroad and repression at home.”

The US Treasury Department sanctions prohibit targeted entities from accessing US-based assets, using the US dollar and financial systems, and participating in transactions that involve American citizens or businesses.

In addition to sanctions imposed by the US Treasury and State Departments, the administration also announced trade restrictions against more than 90 entities through the Department of Commerce.

Among those targeted are three Russian prison officials connected to Navalny.

The State Department sanctions hit Valeriy Gennadevich Boyarinev, the deputy director of the Federal Penitentiary Service, which has oversight of the penal colony where the opposition figure died, who “reportedly instructed prison staff to exert harsher treatment on … Navalny while he was in detention,” according to a State Department face sheet.

“Following Navalny’s death, Boyarinev was promoted to ‘Colonel General’ by decree of Vladimir Putin,” the fact sheet said.

They also target Igor Borisovich Rakitin, “the overall head of the Federal Penitentiary Service of1322 Russia for the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region, in which Penal Colony IK-3 is located,” and Vadim Konstantinovich Kalinin, the prison warden. IK-3, nicknamed “Polar Wolf,” is where Navalny was imprisoned immediately before his death.

The sanctions package released Friday doesn’t directly sanction Putin. He is already sanctioned, according to a Treasury official.

The US, along with other Western governments, has levied a series of sanctions against Russia in recent years, but Russia has adapted to them. Putin has taken to gloating about Russia’s resistance to international sanctions, which take time to have an effect.

US officials have acknowledged the importance of adjusting Western sanctions to keep up the pressure – from ramping up enforcement of the price cap on Russian oil to targeting companies and financial institutions helping Russia evade sanctions – and remain confident that in the long run the Kremlin’s effort to successfully reorient its economy and trade will fail.

Biden has repeatedly condemned Putin and called him “a crazy SOB” in a fundraiser in San Francisco, according to the pool reporters traveling with the US president. The Kremlin, in response, said Biden’s comments were a “huge disgrace” for the United States.

Earlier this week, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan described the package as “another turn of the crank” after withering Western sanctions on Moscow since the start of the Ukraine war. While those sanctions have hampered Russia’s economy, they haven’t deterred Putin from proceeding with the invasion.

US Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo told CNN in a call with reporters Thursday that Friday’s package illustrates the United States’ increasing focus on sanctioning companies in third-party countries that are providing materials and key supplies for Russia’s war effort.

“We’re going after the key nodes in the Russian economy that are purchasing a number of these goods from companies in third countries,” he said. “So, our strategy more and more is making it harder for Russia to use the supply chain to build the weapons that they need. And we’re gonna be continuing to do that because our goal has to be to use the tools at Treasury and the Commerce Department to put sand in the gears of Russia’s military industrialized complex.”

“Russia is mortgaging their future in order to pay for the war that they want in their present,” Adeyemo said, adding later: “Putin thinks he can outsmart us and outlast us by turning inward, but Russia’s wartime transformation allows us to target densely concentrated production in a new and efficient way. With such a vertical integration we can hit the entire supply chain.”

In total, the Treasury Department on Friday sanctioned hundreds of entities involved in Russia’s military-industrial base, 26 third-country entities facilitating Russian sanctions evasion, and the operator of the Mir National Payment System – which the US government describes as a “major cog” in Russia’s financial infrastructure. Some of the third-party entities sanctioned Friday include firms in China, Serbia and the United Arab Emirates.

“This solemn anniversary and Aleksey Navalny’s death in Russian custody are stark and tragic reminders of Putin’s brazen disregard for human life, from Ukrainians suffering the costs of his unprovoked war to people across Russia who dare to expose the corrupt abuses that fuel his regime,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a statement.

In addition to Treasury’s actions, the US State Department on Friday imposed sanctions against those helping support Russia’s energy sector, waging its war against Ukraine, and facilitating sanctions evasion.

US officials had been working on a new sanctions package on Russia ahead of Navalny’s death and supplemented them in the wake of the opposition leader’s death, according to a senior US official, who added that US officials coordinated with European partners on the new package.

The EU and the United Kingdom are both expected to announce their own sanctions packages ahead of the two year anniversary of Russia’s invasion.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/poli...mUdZd7jwoh0cHqVlfMg6qEZeQjlyvu0yVXctHdaE

While the message the GOP is sending to Putin is to do “whatever the hell they want”.

I just want to address those we've seen in other threads that say Ukraine has no chance. I want to challenge the GOP mouthpieces that claim sending support to Ukraine only increases the death of their people in a war they can not win. That the only way to end this war is to negotiate with Putin. You can tell those that haven't learned from history. Even those who haven't learned anything from their own countries history. So lest they forget.........

Our nation was founded on the notion that we wanted to be free form foreign oppression. That we wanted to be able to elect a government and govern ourselves. No different than the people of Ukraine except Ukraine had already accomplished those things until Russia attacked them in an effort to stop it. But at that point in history we had nothing more than a bare bones military with rag tag forces, little munitions, while the empire of Great Britain was one of the strongest, greatest military forces in the world. Without support from somewhere we stood little chance. It was a situation not much different than the one Ukraine faces today.

But there was another military power, France, who realized that supporting us in the fight against their own enemy helped them. They supported us by providing supplies, arms and ammunition, uniforms, troops and naval support to the beleaguered Continental Army. The French navy transported reinforcements, fought off a British fleet, and protected Washington's forces in Virginia.

Now it's true we aren't supporting them with troops, however much like France we have been helping give them the means to fight off Russia in much the same way France supported us. Without France we had little chance of defeating Great Britain. And as much as some belittle France these days, without them the odds are we would have remained under British rule for God knows how much longer.

That's why it's so critical to continue supporting Ukraine. For our own nation owes a debt of gratitude for the support France gave to us which without that support there may have never been a United States of America. History is a wonderful thing when one is willing to learn from it.

trump and the Republicans have fresh Ukrainian blood on thier hands. That is a fact. Given them the money. Every day without it is more preventable Ukrainian deaths. Their priority is a vacation. How do they live with themselves?

You and Pit both hit the nail on the head.

I’ve said it before. If people think it’s too expensive to support Ukraine, just wait and see the price we’ll pay if we don’t.

We should send Z the house MAGA zealots for cannon fodder.

I would just like to add some context to the statement you're making, if Russia wins. Some might need to pull out a map.

So, if Russia takes over Ukraine, they will have a land bridge to take over Moldova. There is already a separatist faction in Moldova that is pro-Russian and anti-Moldovian. So if that happens, Romania, who is a true NATO ally is surrounded by Ukraine, and Moldova, now Russian occupied (in this scenario), and Serbia, who is Russian friendly. On top of that, Russia now has a land border between occupied Ukraine and Slovakia and Hungary which are both EU and NATO members who now have pro-Russian autocratic Governments. Read: infiltration.

On top of that, Russia now occupies almost the entire eastern border of Poland with Belarus, a Russian vassal, and occupied Ukraine. Slovakia occupies a substantial portion of the southern border. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are almost completely surrounded as of now, by Russia, Belarus and Kaliningrad.

If anyone can see this and show me how this leads to less investment toward NATO maintaining its prowess over Europe, please do so.

I'm all ears. Let's try to be objective.

Trump didn’t give them talking points to battle facts bro. Don’t hold your breath.

NATO should have inducted Ukraine under their umbrella years ago. Hindsight is 20/20.

You're asking someone to look at things big picture rather than from a micro perspective. I wish you luck with that.

Actually the price we’ll pay will be the massive number of lives we’ll loose.

If we stand idly by and permit Russia to take over Ukraine the odds of that happening are greatly increased.

Ukraine's top spy chief says Alexei Navalny 'died from a blood clot' amid claims that jailed Putin critic was murdered by Russian spies
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...says-Alexei-Navalny-died-blood-clot.html

Putin had him poisoned by Russian spies. He had well documented after effects of that poison. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be dead now if Putin hadn’t poisoned him, and later threw him in prison. Putin is a cold blooded killer. But it doesn’t surprise me that GOPers are constantly excusing away the crimes of their leaders.

I don't think he's making that accusation, but I will say it doesn't really matter how he died. Putin is the proximate cause. I mean, you throw the guy in prison on trumped up charges and then he ends up in solitary in Siberia and dies...yeah...I think we know who's solely responsible for the death, no matter what.

Poison is always seemingly the way it goes down with these guys. He attempted before on Navalny IIRC.

‘An unlikely reason for a natural death’ Russian state media says a blood clot killed Navalny. His doctor says there’s no way of knowing without an independent autopsy.

On February 16, Russian prison officials reported that opposition politician Alexey Navalny had died in a penal colony in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug. Navalny’s associates have yet to independently confirm these reports. Navalny’s lawyer, Leonid Solovyov, said that he last visited his client on February 14 and that he was doing fine at that time. To find out more about the recent state of Navalny’s health, Meduza spoke to Alexander Polupan, one of the doctors who treated the opposition leader following his poisoning in 2020 and then continued to advise his associates on a regular basis.

When reached by Meduza following reports of Alexey Navalny’s death on February 16, Alexander Polupan said that he had “no exclusive information” about the recent state of the opposition politician’s health. “I don’t know anything his team doesn’t know,” the doctor said.

Earlier in the day, Russian prison authorities had reported that Navalny “felt unwell after a walk and almost immediately lost consciousness,” and then could not be resuscitated. “Emergency medical personnel confirmed the death of the convict. The cause of death is being established,” they said in a statement. Russia propaganda network RT then claimed that Navalny had died of a “detached blood clot.”

Polupan said that he wasn’t aware of any “fundamental or critical deterioration” in Navalny’s health. He also questioned the cause of death reported by Russian state media. “Clearly, his health [was generally] poor, as would be the case with any person who is placed in such conditions. But it somehow seems to me that this is an unlikely reason for a natural death,” he told Meduza. “They could have said ‘sudden cardiac arrest’ but only an autopsy can show a thromboembolism. There are no other methods.”

According to the doctor, Navalny did not have any underlying conditions that would put him at risk of a thromboembolism (this is the medical term for the obstruction of an artery by a dislodged blood clot). “He had problems with his spine some time ago, but they were absolutely not life-threatening, they only caused [him] discomfort,” he recalled. “He also had pneumonia a long time ago. But, I’ll repeat, he had no acute [health] problems lately.”

“He had neuropathy from the Novichok poisoning, but that’s typical for such poisoning [cases],” he added.

Asked if a blood clot could be used as a cover-up for murder, Polupan emphasized the importance of an independent autopsy. “If an honest autopsy is performed, the blood clot should be visible. A diagnosis of a thromboembolism cannot be made without the detached blood clot being found,” the doctor underscored. “But they [the Russian authorities] can do whatever they want — [they can] falsify the autopsy report and no one will be able to verify anything.”

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2024/02/16/an-unlikely-reason-for-a-natural-death

And as we know, there has been no independent autopsy.

If Nato does not want this to happen, I feel they need to do more than give money/supplies. It feels like countries think they can throw money at the problem and it will go away. Ukraine is losing the attrition war.

As Russia makes gains, Ukraine needs more soldiers. But expanding the draft is controversial

Last year in one of the Ukraine threads someone brought this up and the liberals on this board roasted him for having such a thought. Point remains, Russia has more bodies to throw at this than Ukraine does. Giving Ukraine tanks isn't going to do any good if they have no one to operate them. If they don't want Ukraine to fall, I feel sooner or later NATO will have to escalate this.

I don’t recall what you’re talking about or what the “liberals” said.

I do agree that more needs to be given to them, but withholding aid as we are doing right now, has the opposite effect of escalation, as we are currently seeing.

Plus, a lot of the materiel and things Ukraine requires does not demand excessive or much manpower at all.

Sure, Russia wave attacks. They take on massive casualties. That has been their thing since WW2 when they set up 2 lines. One to charge and one to shoot the first line if they retreat. That’s why they ended up with 3-4x the number of casualties as Germany.

Manpower is a factor in beating that, sure. But there are a lot more factors at play. We have, relatively speaking, been so lopsided in our casualty numbers vs the countries we combat against because of our materiel asymmetry.

But yes I do agree more needs to be done. NATO needs to step up. Germany withholding things like the Taurus is straight dumb. But that doesn’t negate our own stupidity.

Also, I just wanted to correct a mischaracterization you mentioned, which has become a Republican (read Vance) talking point. It is not throwing money at the problem. It is throwing supplies and materiel at the problem, which is what Ukraine is asking us for.

They haven’t asked for more troops, although I’m sure they wouldn’t mind.

I understand your point, but supplies and materials is money. Raytheon isn't going to donate their stuff. Farmers aren't going to donate their oats or soybeans for free.

Cost and money are pretty much the same thing.

GOPers only throw money upon themselves. No surprises here. Pffft GOPers.

Seems to me that we have 3 options:

1, donate money and supplies

2, donate troops, either now or after Putin overruns Ukraine and moves on to his next conquest

3, We can sit back and let Putin overrun Eastern Europe, then let China sweep in and take Taiwan.

Right now the Russians gains are due to Ukraine not having what they need to fight the war. All you're doing is showing how cutting off their supplies creates a self fulfilling prophesy.

"We cut off their funding so now they're losing. We can't keep supplying a losing cause."

You are correct in that Russia gains a huge advantage in a battle of attrition.

Where this conversation gets frustrating is when you go a layer deeper. Ukraine has become a battle of attrition largely because of support (equipment and ammo, not $$) being delayed. That delay allowed Russia to seriously beef up its lines of defense, and once support did finally arrive and was deployed much the equipment advantage was mitigated by this slower plodding pace. If equipment wasn't needlessly delayed giving Russia time to prepare, we could be having a very different convo right now.

Politicians arguing that they shouldn't send equipment because of what happened when they didn't send equipment in a timely manner.

I'm not debating that. That is absolutely correct.

But the narrative that I think many - including Vance - have furthered is that we are lobbing money over at Ukraine and they are just doing whatever they want with it, and that is not the case.

FYI - "Materiel" is different than "Materials." I wasn't misspelling. It's a catch-all for weapons, equipment, etc. needed for war.

Yeah, exactly. Back when things were asymmetrical because Ukraine was being supplied with the same or better equipment than what the Russians were using, the numbers disparity didn't matter. Now that that has vanished, Ukraine has to play Russia at their own game and Russia was able to regroup.

Which we build and sell to them and pump money back into our economy. Unfortunately war is good for the economy.

Ukraine’s troops are rationing ammunition. Yet House Republicans plan to take weeks to mull more aid

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ukrainian drones fly without ammunition. Russian artillery unleash deadly volleys from safe positions beyond the range of Kyiv’s troops. Shortages of ammo and supplies are resulting in lost ground to Moscow, U.S. congressional leaders warn, yet the Republican-controlled House has shown little hurry to resupply Ukraine with military aid.

Across Washington, officials are viewing the drop-off in ammunition shipments with increasing alarm. It’s now been over two months since the U.S. — which since World War II has fashioned itself as the “Arsenal of Democracy” — last sent military supplies to Ukraine.

But House Speaker Mike Johnson appears determined to chart his own course away from a $95 billion foreign aid package passed by the Senate — a decision that could stall the package for weeks to come after an already arduous months-long wait in Congress.

With U.S. military shipments cut off, Ukrainian troops withdrew from the eastern city of Avdiivka last month, where outnumbered defenders had withheld a Russian assault for four months. Delays in military support from the West are complicating the task for Kyiv’s military tacticians, forcing troops to ration ammunition and ultimately costing the lives of Ukrainian soldiers.

“If Ukraine gets the aid they will win. If they don’t get the aid they will lose — with dire consequences to the United States,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who visited Ukraine last week.

Defense officials are discussing options, which include possibly tapping existing stockpiles even before Congress approves funding to replenish them, according to Sen. Jack Reed, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And at a White House meeting this week, President Joe Biden, the two top Democrats in Congress and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell all took turns intensely urging Johnson to take up a Senate-passed package that would provide $60 billion worth of assistance for Kyiv.

So far, the Republican speaker has refused.

The Louisiana Republican — just four months into the powerful job as speaker, second in the line to the presidency — is under intense pressure from all sides. The leaders of 23 European parliaments have signed an open letter urging him to pass the aid. And within his own House ranks, senior Republicans are growing restive at the inaction, even as other far-right members have threatened to try to remove him from leadership if he advances the aid for Kyiv.

“The House is actively considering options on a path forward, but our first responsibility is to fund the government and our primary, overriding responsibility — and it has been for the last three years — has been to secure the border,” Johnson said at a news conference.

Johnson responded to the pressure on Ukraine by saying the House had only received the funding legislation in mid-February after the Senate took four months to negotiate, including enforcement policies at the U.S.-Mexico border. The deal on border security swiftly collapsed after Republicans, including Johnson, criticized the proposal as insufficient. Yet Johnson and other House Republicans are once again hoping to secure some policy wins on border security.

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Congress late last year, he told Johnson that the military aid would last into February. But as Congress entered March, Johnson so far has allowed House members to craft their own proposals and revealed little on his plans for the package.

“We’re beyond the time frame that this should have taken, this analysis and careful consideration by the House should have been completed before the end of the year or very shortly after the new year,” said Rep. French Hill, an Arkansas Republican.

Hill and several other senior Republicans are pressing Johnson to act by crafting a new national security package in the House. That bill, which is being drafted by Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul and key appropriators, is expected to come in less than the $95 billion Senate package but include many similar provisions — including money that Ukraine, Israel and Indo-Pacific allies could use to purchase U.S. military equipment, as well as some humanitarian assistance.

It may also include a version of the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians, or REPO Act, which would allow the U.S. to tap frozen Russian central bank assets to compensate Ukraine for damages from the invasion, Hill said. He said it would save taxpayer dollars in the long run and help gain Republican votes in the House.

“This is more a matter of finding out the way to move forward,” said seasoned Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., the chairman of the Rules committee. “But a substantial majority of both houses of Congress wants to help Ukraine. You had 70 over there,” he said about the robust Senate support, “and the vote here will be well north of 300.”

Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire, who leads a caucus of centrist Democrats called New Dems, said many in her party are ready to help Johnson pass a military aid package if he brings it to the floor. But she said the bill already passed by the Senate would have the broadest support.

“We’re at a critical moment right now, and I encourage Speaker Johnson to work with us,” Kuster said. “He has such a slim majority.”

Meanwhile, any decision by the Pentagon to send Ukraine weapons before Congress approves funding is fraught with risk. Since there is no money to replenish the equipment and weapons sent, the military would be depleting its stockpiles and potentially risking harm to unit readiness for war.

In addition, there are worries that action from the Pentagon could dissuade Congress from moving quickly on the funding bill.

Reed said it would make more sense for Congress to pass the supplemental package, because then the Pentagon “could immediately order the equipment they’re drawing down. We run the risk without that of drawing down the equipment and not being able to replace it or being confident of replacement.”

But he added, “There might be circumstances where the president would decide to ship equipment like ATACMS, even though it would be a difficult judgment.”

The U.S. has sent medium-range ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems) as well as HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems). But there has been pressure for the U.S. to send longer-range ATACMS. The U.S. has resisted out of concerns Moscow would consider them escalatory, since they could reach deeper into Russia and Russian-held territory.

Ukrainian leaders, however, could use the longer-range missiles to disrupt Russian supply lines — a capability that is seen as essential as Russian President Vladimir Putin looks to surge more troops this spring.

Ukraine also has made it clear that its forces also need additional artillery, including 155 mm howitzer rounds, as well as air defense ammunition.

Ukrainian officials have expressed confidence they can withstand a Russian offensive for several more months, said Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council, which advocates for American cooperation with Europe. Yet she added that the Pentagon’s consideration of using drawdown authority sent a somber message that officials view the conflict as having direct implications for U.S. national security.

Some are warning that if Congress fails to provide the aid, U.S. troops will next be called on to help defend NATO allies.

Schumer said that during his trip to Ukraine, “One leading American said to me if we don’t get the aid, Russian tanks could be at the Polish border by December.”

https://apnews.com/article/congress...blicans-53db93c5db8ab249503e93b558da5bd8

The House extremists goal of gifting the nation of Ukraine to Russia is well under way. Well done Comrades.

Unfreakingbelievable.

Sweden officially joins NATO!!

Sweden formally joins Nato military alliance
1 day ago
By Laura Gozzi,
BBC News
link

Bull, here's what I posted in the economy thread.

I'm beginning to think I don't understand your argument. I honestly want to know your (you yourself, in your own words) hold-up when it comes to sending equipment to Ukraine.

I mean this sincerely. Read below and tell me where you think I'm wrong.

1. You don't want to send equipment to Ukraine because you think it's a waste/lost cause.

Maybe the situation has shifted lately with Russia being more dug in after the latest Ukrainian counterattack that stalled, but Ukraine has showed before that that, when properly equipped, they absolutely have the ability to boatrace the Russians.

2. You think Ukraine is corrupt and will mis-appropriate the stuff given to them.

We have been mostly sending them equipment. While this equipment has a real value to it, I don't believe I've read any indication that this is going on. Ukraine has had issues with corruption in the past and has put effort into stamping it out.

3. You think just sending equipment is a half-measure.

Having just gotten the American military out (for the most part) out of Afghanistan, I (and many others I imagine) are reluctant to turn around and send our troops to trench warfare in Europe. Especially when the military that we would be supporting has already shown the ability to be effective on their own when adequately equipped. I also find this reason to be weird given it's often used interchangeable with the spending argument... sending soldiers would be far more expensive (both in dollars and otherwise). Additionally, Ukraine is not in NATO, so sending troops would be diplomatically tough especially since other NATO countries have yet to send their own troops despite their ever-increasing proximity to Russian troops.

3. We should be pushing peace negotiations vs fighting.

IMO, this amounts to appeasement, and we have more than enough evidence (with Russia specifically as well as other similarly-led countries) to know that it won't work in the long run. Russia started this with Crimea, and we didn't smack them upside the head then and here we are. To borrow a football phrase, there's more than enough tape out there on Putin to know what he's about and what we should expect if we cave to him again. The way I see it, in order to avoid being right back in this same situation a couple years down the line, Russia has to take a clear L and be dis-incentivized to keep messing around in Europe.

I’m pretty sure Bull is saying it is a waste of money to just send arms and equipment. We must also send boots to win. And an alternative is to send in a Seal team to take out Putin. I could be wrong.

It's mostly door number 3 (the half measure one). I'm also hesitant to send troops. It's not something I want to do. Unfortunately, Putin needs to be stopped. Yes, Ukraine was effective at the start. Unfortunately, appearances can be deceiving. I think too many people are buying into the Ukrainian Kool-aid. Think of it like Thermopylae. Yes, 300 Spartans put a hurting on the Persians early on, but in the end they died. Plus, they actually weren't alone and had Greek allies in the field. The scale is different, in time and numbers, but the result looks to be headed towards somewhere similar to me.

Putin seems an awful lot to think like he's also a sort of (Persian) god-king.

If by "at the start" you mean when they were given the proper equipment with which to defend themselves I would say you are correct. The fact that they aren't doing well now that they are not being given that equipment is what is happening. Claims to the contrary is the Kool-Aid people aren't buying into.

So saying they were doing well when they had the military equipment to fight Russia but now they aren't because they don't have that equipment is quite accurate. But what that supports is that they should continue to get that equipment to fight Russia. Not the opposite.

People wear down. Russia has more fresh bodies to send. Yes, Ukraine can draft 500,000 more soldiers. Russia will then draft/conscript/hire 1,000,000 more soldiers. Ukraine will run out of people before Russia does without outside personnel. Russia may have to go back to tactics like having officers mowing down their own troops that refuse to advance, but I don't see that stopping Putin. Russia has ~100,000,000 more people and is bringing in cannon fodder from outside its borders.

You can spout all of that you like but it still doesn't change the fact that Ukraine was doing an admirable job of defending itself when they had the weaponry to do so. There are also many mercenary troops fighting for Ukraine that come from outside their own border.

You're trying to project what will happen rather than being objective and factual about what has been happening. And you still refuse to address the fact that Ukraine did an admirable job of defending itself when they were given the weaponry to do so and it is only now when we are withholding that weaponry that they are struggling. You projections of the future won't change any of that.

The Spartans did an admirable job, too. How is that not addressing it? Open your eyes. Stop squeezing them shut and chanting your forcefed talking points until you believe them.

As of last month there were 20,000 foreigners in the Ukrainian foreign legion.(link) That's a drop in the bucket.

Your sending material and hoping for the best won't change anything. It'll just delay the moment when Ukraine is overrun.

Yet they were doing a fine job until they stopped getting the weaponry to defend themselves. Predicting the worst results won't change any of that either. Once again you're using your projection while ignoring the results to date when they have had the ability to defend themselves.

Go to Ukraine and then tell me how fine they are doing.

You think you know so much that you actually have no idea about.

You overrate your ability to interpret the results. You have no idea what you are looking at. You think like a civilian. You don't know what you don't know.

Things "starting well" aren't really a result. The attacker in this type of conflict generally suffers higher casualties as the defender has entrenched positions. Killing more people doesn't mean they are winning. It just shows Russia is willing to pay a high cost to get what they want. Ukraine lost the siege of Mariupol in 2022. It's still in Russian hands. Lots of Russians died, but Putin got what he wanted.

What part of this are you missing? Of course with no equipment and having to ration ammunition they're not doing fine. That's what I've been telling you all along. I know you're superiority complex precedes you but when you manufacture a situation that dictates the results and then say "Look at the results" you're not actually making a point.

But since you can't actually show that as being wrong you try and make it sound like you're the only one who could possibly understand anything. Shooting the messenger is not know as an effective debating style.

In 2022, we were supplying material. They still lost. Russia occupied Mariupol. That's what I've been telling you all along.

You don't know what losing looks like. You're looking at spreadsheets and propaganda and think that more Russians dying means Ukraine is winning. It doesn't. Ukraine can kill 100,000,000 more Russian troops than it has casualties and still lose.

So only your truth isn't propaganda. I see. We both know that Ukraine held a line in the sand for a long time. Actually made progress in 2023. But you have "an example". Well here's an example for you of what they accomplished while they still had the weaponry to do so.....

Ukraine has recaptured 50% of the territory that Russia seized, Blinken says

https://www.reuters.com/world/blink...territory-that-russia-seized-2023-07-23/

Since this goes against everything you've been trying to say are you just going to label this as propaganda too?

Yeah, apparently I can't count. That last one (appeasement) was supposed to be #4.

I know as much as you do about the current situation on the ground (not a whole lot). Troops do wear down, but for a while Ukraine was doing an admirable job of cycling out troops (ex. they had to send troops from the front line to get trained on the new western tanks before they could be reintegrated with the newly-equipped groups). Long-term, I think you are correct, though. Putin can (and obviously will) throw anyone and everyone at Ukraine. That's why I think it's even more crucial that Ukraine can maintain any sort of tactical or equipment advantage they can. They were effectively negating the numbers advantage and retaking land until equipment aid slowed.

If we are not prepared to do that, then what's the point? Prolonging conflict in Ukraine will take its toll on Russia (troop and equipment losses, maintaining a war economy amidst sanctions) but they will eventually take Ukraine. Then Putin will chill for long enough to recharge and start this all over again somewhere else and continue pushing into Europe. Then we get to have this same conversation all over again but with escalating costs (especially if he's so bold as to attach a NATO country... we are running out of buffer space, after all).

You don't understand how war works. There are critical areas and there are non-critical. Ukraine regained areas of little to no strategic importance. Small villages and empty land, it says so in your linked article. They weren't worth the effort for Russia to defend in any way other than an opportunity to bleed some Ukrainian numbers.

Mariupol is a critical port.

So these areas were worth the effort for Russia to attack and the territory was worth them taking but when Ukraine took them back Russia defending them wasn't worth the effort? I'm not sure what inventive math you use to deduce that.

What you said in bold is pretty much what I've been saying. I don't think the tactical and equipment advantage was negating the numbers as much as many think it was. I think the "success" of the counteroffensive was much overblown. They just extended the front so they'll have to stretch their numbers thinner and allow Russia's numerical advantage to play a bigger factor. To defend the regained area, they'll have to pull troops from areas that are actually strategically important.

Russia took it because it was easy, not because they needed it to achieve their goals. Russia is happy to let Ukraine expend its limited soldiers taking back essentially worthless land.

So you're sticking with the theory that Russia felt in was important enough to take but not important enough to defend even though Russia, according to you, has Ukraine so outnumbered and overpowered. That their intended goal was to use their overwhelming military advantage to crush Ukraine but given the opportunity to confront them face to face during the offensive they simply chose not to. Got it!

No, my thinking is that Russia's high command understands military strategy while Ukraine's high command understands working the media much better than it does military strategy.

If you can lure the enemy into a minefield and they charge right into it, you let them. Particularly when the only thing on the other side of the minefield are sacked villages. Rain artillery down on them the whole way. If Ukraine is willing to expend a significant enough force, pull back the troops to areas you can't afford to lose while demolishing the Ukrainian military's combat effectiveness on the cheap where they are the ones running into the teeth of entrenched opposition.

It's a question of "the juice being worth the squeeze." Enduring heavy losses to capture a vital foothold makes tactical sense. Enduring heavy losses to retake a shelled out wasteland might not be the best use of resources.

Your thinking is what's led to your conclusion we should either abandon Ukraine or start WW3.

So according to your thinking Russia taking these small villages with no tactical advantages were worth it but defending them wasn't worth it? Alrighty then.

What were Russia's losses while taking the villages? What were Ukraine's? If you can find a legitimate source showing numbers that show Russia lost more there, you'd have a point. Russia's losses have mostly come at places of strategic importance like Mariupol. Ukraine is spending troops it can't afford to lose to retake crater-filled parking lots in the hinterlands.

My conclusion is that WW3 already started. NATO's already supporting Ukraine. Most of the world is already involved. Unfortunately, starts are easiest to see in hindsight. So we'd best find a way to end it quickly before China decides to join in on Russia's side because we don't have the stones to stop them.

You are the one to make the initial accusation and assertions. So why is it now left up to me to show the numbers? So you don't think the U.S. and NATO sending troops in would be the actual strongest catalyst to get China involved right away? It seems you support adding the fuel to the fire which would cause China to get involved, not the opposite.

It's up to you because you are the numbers guy. You were the one trying to tote casualty ratios as evidence.

Anyone can see that Russia is taking major ports while Ukraine is taking back... a whole lot of mostly conflict-irrelevant space. No numbers are really required with my point. It stands on its own merit. For your point to have merit, it needs the numbers to support it.

Bad choices all around. I don't deny it. I thought you were all about choosing the lesser evil. All that's required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. You've commented how the Ukraine aid bill cost is an insignificant amount. Another way to say insignificant amount is practically nothing.

Doing just enough to make yourself feel better might as well be nothing.

Those who believe that withholding military aid from Ukraine and just allowing Putin to take over...you have such a short memory, forgetting what happened in Nam. Using American soldiers to fight another countries war doesn't work so good, does it?

Russia/Putin didn't count on the Ukrainian people to step forward and fight for their homeland or that the Ukraine would have a leader (Zelenskyy) who is respected and willing lead his fellow countrymen/women to take on Putin and the great Russian military. Putin didn't believe that the Russian military would still be fighting the Ukrainian military, 2/3 yrs after Putin decided to invade the Ukraine.

Putin and his great military have made so many miscalculations and misjudged this war and have been exposed in the process. We have a country that is willing to fight their own war without risking American soldiers lives and some would rather screw this opportunity up for political reasons than allow Ukraine to defend their own country with the help of American Military aid/equipment.

Those willing to withhold aid to Ukraine are not putting a very high priority on the lives of our American soldiers.

First, a seal team would never be sent to kill Putin wthout us being at war with Russia. Even then, regime replacement and assassinations, are not things we are historically good at.

Second, American boots on the ground would put Putin in a position to fire nukes. And I think he would nuke Ukraine and one or more of our NATO allies. Boots on the ground would be a stupid move on our part IMHO. And Zelensky has punched Putin in the mouth almost from the jump with our war toys.

I think we should load them up and train them up somewhere in the EU. Then let them lose on Putin. Worst case bad scenario, Ukraine falls and Putin gets a Pyrrhic Victory. I would not be apposed to sending in paid mercenaries, but not US active duty soldiers.

Additionally, we should send or have an entire fleet with multiple carriers parked off the coast of Iran and southern Ukraine where the Donbas region could be bombed like hell within minutes. And Russia would be in range of our sub nukes there. That will keep Putin from using nukes and Iran from shipping missiles to Russia. And it tells Iran that sending their missiles will cost them… If we bomb anyone, it should be Iran. Let them declare war… who cares. The only weapons they can hurt us with are terrorist and nukes. I don’t think their nukes can reach us, and they are at minimum partially responsible for Putins recent attacks.

I don't think anyone wants to allow Putin to take over.

Viet Nam isn't a great comparison. The terrain is completely different. We knew next to nothing about jungle warfare. The stakes are higher here. We've got a sociopath with nukes invading countries.

No one wants to fight someone else's war, but some times the world has to band together to take out a Hitler. To me, it feels like Putin has entered that awful "stratosphere."

I don't think you have any idea about Russia's expectations. I think you're repeating fabrications that have been presented as facts. Who is it exactly that had access to Russia's invasion plans? After the time it took for Russia to take over Chechnya, I'm pretty sure they were aware that invasions can take time. Unfortunately, time is on Russia's side in this conflict as it is. Time is in some ways a weapon in Russia's arsenal. Already we've got support wavering here and inside Ukraine. Russia isn't reliant on blitzkrieg tactics. They're more about implacability. Just keep coming until they grind you down. They are fine with playing the long game. Putin's former KGB. They plant sleepers for lifetimes.

The lives of American soldiers line gets trotted out a lot. To me, I think it's dismissive of their sacrifice to assume that they want to sit around watching this travesty unfold.

While I think only sending aid is dumb, I do think doing absolutely nothing is even dumber.

We'd declare Putin a war criminal, terrorist, and his election illegitimate first in that scenario. I probably wouldn't actually send a SEAL team. I'd probably try to get a more international team of volunteers together and go the black ops/disavowed route. Russian insurrectionists would be even better, but they'd probably be less reliable. "Assassination" isn't really something I'd want us to get good at or in the habit of. Unfortunately, sometimes the world just needs to be rid of certain singular individuals. I'm not saying this is a good option. It's more a case of I'm not seeing good options.

"Zelensky has punched Putin in the mouth... with our war toys" sounds like you've consumed a bit too much war fiction or have gotten too used to sports/war metaphors. It's more Ukraine has pricked the bear while having one (or more, depending on your thoughts of the LPR and DPR) of it's own limbs torn off. Russia lost a decent bit of blood, but not really much long-term efficacy. You used "Pyrrhic Victory," too.

"Load them up and train them up somewhere in the EU"- any idea how long this will take, who's going to continue fighting while it happens, or just how the logistics would work?

Worst case bad scenario is always gonna be nukes. It could happen if Putin grows impatient even without putting (US/NATO) boots on the ground.

Unfortunately, nukes don't have to reach us. Enough of them anywhere and the fallout would be catastrophic.

I'm also pretty sure Putin would consider putting fleets where you want them an act of war.

There really don't seem to be any great answers. Nuclear deterrence was supposed to stop countries from fighting. Unfortunately, Putin is using it to stop people from stopping him fighting.

Rather naive...ask yourself, why would anyone (such as RW politicians) hold up military aid to a country that has used it's own soldiers to fight Putin to a standoff for the last 2 yrs?


Bull...so allowing Putin to exterminate Ukrainians and take their land is a good way appease Putin and stop his nuclear threats..?


Ukraine wants to fight their own war but now a handful of American RRWers wants to deny Ukraine the military support to stop Putin from achieving his goal in Ukraine.


Why would any American support such a hair-brained idea...withhold military support to Ukraine and allow Putin take over their country?

In your case, I KNOW WHY...Bull, you have allowed yourself to react OUT OF THE FEAR..!

You are afraid of Putin threats and are more than willing to give up on the Ukrainian people and give their country to Putin. That is exactly what Putin's nuclear threats are designed to do and his strategy worked on you.

Fortunately, America's intelligence agencies remove the personal, emotional reactions from the equation and rely on realistic assumptions, based on factual assumptions.


bull...you don't know much about me or just what information I have had access to during my time in the military.

I will say this much, America stands at a moment in time where Putin's failed plan to take back the Ukraine is in serious doubt if our RRWers will just allow Ukrainian troops fight Putin with the help and support of American training and equipment.

Stop Putin in Ukraine and he will be weakened at home without sending American soldiers into harms way. America's hope is to damage Putin so badly that Russia takes care of their Putin Problem on their own and without risking the lives of American soldiers in the process.

Definitely didn’t have an ISIS attack in Moscow on my 2024 bingo card

Islamic State group claims responsibility for Moscow mass shooting that left dozens dead. Here's what we know.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dozens-k...ssian-state-media-reports-193438660.html

1. They'd hold it up for political reasons, not because they want Putin to win. I was referring more to people posting in the thread, though. Whether or not their political shenanigans are putting the world at risk is a different question. Stupidity and greed are definitely making things bleaker in Ukraine, but I don't think the intention is to let Putin win. Could be the result.

2. No one here has said that it is. Maybe that straw man was thrown out as if somebody else had made it. It's hard to keep track of all of the completely fabricated opposing views people can try to say someone else was making.

3. Yep, wanting to take out Putin somehow shows fear and that I want him to take over Ukraine. Someone gonna raise him from the dead? You expecting the zombie apocalypse?

..."factual assumptions"....

4. You don't know what I did in the military. It doesn't particularly matter what information you had access to back then. I don't think anyone is slipping you classified information snuck out of Russia now. If so, expect some visitors soon to ask you all about it. I'm sure they'd find you a nice comfy interrogation room.

5. That all sounds great and very patriotic. (Patriotic?) Unfortunately, I'm not sure why you are so optimistic about how well Ukraine was doing. It's a little early to call the plan failed. No "plan" survives contact with the enemy, yet Russia seems to be adapting better than Ukraine. Ukraine appears to be making some poor decisions. If by some miracle Ukraine does push Russia out, I wouldn't put it past Putin to decide that if he can't have it, no one can.

6. It'd be great if that happened. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely to happen that way if something doesn't change. And I'm talking before the aid slowed down. Now, just turning the aid back on isn't going to cut it. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, he's unlikely to stop there. He's already consolidating his control and eliminating dissenters. He threatened nukes, and we blinked. Why would he stop?

If Ukraine breaks, it feels like it's going to break bad. The thought of Ukraine adding a bunch of green troops to the mix doesn't encourage me as much as it does others. It kind of does the opposite. I'm going to predict we'll have lots of people here claiming they knew we should have done more sooner, if so.

I'll only address one of your points. That being point one. While they may be doing it for political reasons, they know without a doubt what the results of their actions will be There's no way they can't be fully aware that by cutting aid of to Ukraine gives Putin a free pass to take it over. Whether that's their main motivation or not they're fully aware of the consequences their actions will lead to and have chosen to do it anyway. No amount of excuses will change that.

Bull...so you agree with me..the Radical RWers who are holding up the military aid to Ukraine are helping Putin/Russia achieve his goal.

The "stupidity and greed" you reference can be sourced back to one individual, Trump, "the dumb one". Filling the role of "and dumber" would be the elected Republicans who are willing to carry out the Trump/Putin anti-American plan to help Putin take over Ukraine.

I was wondering how long it would take Putin to try and lean into it being tied to Ukraine. It didn't take long.......

Putin Speaks Out on Moscow Mass Shooting

Russian President Vladimir Putin alleged that Ukraine tried to help in the escape of the perpetrators of the terrorist attack on the Moscow concert center that has killed at least 133 people.

The Islamic State (IS) group has claimed responsibility for Friday night's attack on Crocus City Hall, a large music venue, in which armed men entered and opened fire on concertgoers. The United States said the IS claim was credible.

Putin said on Saturday that all the suspects had been apprehended on their way to Ukraine where "early reports indicate that a window had been prepared to cross the international border," although the Russian leader did not blame Kyiv directly.

Newsweek has not yet been able to verify Putin's claims and Ukraine has firmly denied it had anything to do with the attacks. Newsweek has contacted the Ukrainian foreign ministry for comment.

In his comments more than 19 hours after the attack, the Russian leader said that the four direct perpetrators of the terrorist attack have been arrested and a total of 11 people had been detained.

"It is already obvious that we are faced with more than just a cynical, planned terrorist attack," he said. "All the perpetrators, organizers and customers of this crime will be punished. Whoever they are, whoever directs them. I repeat, we will establish and punish everyone who stands behind the terrorists, who prepared this atrocity, this blow for Russia, for our people."

He added that "terrorists, murderers...who do not and cannot have a nationality will face one unenviable fate, retribution and oblivion."

Putin, meanwhile, made no mention of IS in his address in which he declared Sunday a national day of mourning.

However, comments from Kremlin propagandists have prompted social media users to speculate that Putin was planning to blame the attacks on Ukraine.

"Certainly looks like the Kremlin will blame Kyiv, presumably paving the way for more mobilization," Kevin Rothrock from independent Russian media outlet Meduza posted on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday.

"Russia's persistent attempts to implicate Ukraine in the attack began with military bloggers and propagandists and have now come full circle," security expert Maria Avdeeva wrote on X, who added, "typical Russian disinformation at play."

Putin's comments coincided with a statement by Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova who said Kyiv's "regime has been carrying out active and systematic terrorist activities against Russian citizens."

Unverified videos shared on social media purported to show two men who had been arrested over the attack, although neither mentioned any connection with Ukraine.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-putin-ukraine-crocus-terror-1882657

If they're not going to do anything else, yes. I'd prefer they did something else/in addition, but doing nothing is definitely not the answer.

Stupidity and greed were in DC before Trump and will probably be there long after.

Unfortunately, I think people that think all we have to do is send the "insignificant amount" of aid that we have been and are spreading that message are also "helping Putin take over Ukraine."

Maybe we want this to drag out as long as possible and weaken both. I guess the aid approach would make a certain amount of sense in that light. Hope Putin dies before the Ukrainians wear out. Kind of lousy for Ukraine, but it does lessen risks to us.

I still believe the longer this goes on the more likely Russia is to win. Also that Russia could keep it going more or less indefinitely, and thus eventually win. But, if Putin dies before that eventually happens, a lot could change. And we wouldn't be risking nuclear Armageddon (hopefully.)

Personally, still don't like backing down from Putin, but I'm stubborn like that and dislike bullies.

As a US taxpayer, can I get an audit of all money being sent to Ukraine and Israel? How do we know its being spent wisely? Personally I believe its a waste.

Instead of continuing to support wars that are not even ours, I'd like to shift all those funds to things such as helping veterans, securing the border, the homeless, mental health, the education system. The current administration cares more about foreign countries than they do the United States. November can't come soon enough.

I'd love to see RFK JR become the next president. I think that would be good for everyone if we could move on from past candidates.

Ukraine is getting military supplies, not money. I don't disagree with the things you say we should spend money on. I also don't think we should just sit idly by while Putin gains power and we are on the verge of WW3. People said the same thing you did when Hitler invaded Poland. And the cost of WWs the result. WW2 far outweighed what we are doing by trying to help stop Putin before history repeats itself.

Yes, having president that buys into every conspiracy theory he can find it what's good for America. I didn't think purple was needed.

Actually they have been getting both. 26 Billion was in cash, the rest was in equipment. The majority of the aid was in equipment.

First off, my apologies for not replying sooner. I generally post at work and when I'm off the mfg floor and it's been absolutely nuts lately.

There were 2 counteroffensives. The first was incredibly successful. The second was a dud.

First counteroffensive happened because Ukraine was able to attack where Russia wasn't expecting, and Russia's poor supply chain left them vulnerable in spots where they weren't focused on at the time. TLDR, Russia military is a joke.

The second counteroffensive had some more stuff going on. Ukraine was promised advanced tanks but those were delayed. Russia used that time to dig in, which made advancing really tough. There were also expectations coming out of the the first counteroffensive.

I don't think the conflict has degraded Ukraine to such an extent that they wouldn't be able to have success again if they were properly equipped. The problem with allowing Russia to dig in is that the price to once again push them back has gone up. In order for Ukraine to gain back territory they are probably going to need another game-changer (longer-range missiles or F-16s). From some of your other posts, it sounds like you might be mixing up what Russia has been doing with its mobilization instead of Ukraine. Russia has been the one that's been hastily sending poorly trained and poorly equipped people to the battlefield. Ukraine may or may not be doing that (and the way things are going it's going to head that way soon if not already).

I agree with you in that the longer this drags on, the probability of a Russia win goes up.

It's frustrating to see Ukraine get hung out to dry while Israel continues to enjoy essentially a blank check in terms of military support. I understand that they're an ally, but at the same time the middle east is a nightmare that we seem to have no problem dumping military resources into... plus despite Oct 7 Israel is struggling to maintain the moral high ground. Compare that to Ukraine (maintain buffer between Russia and NATO is in everyone's best interest, plus Russia is the aggressor with Putin already wanted by the Hague).

I do think Russia's military has issues, too. I know they are also sending largely untrained troops. The difference is that Russia has more of them to send and is bringing many of them in from places that don't see the destruction beforehand. New Ukrainian troops know their country is being torn apart. Russia is tempting poor people from outside its borders with pay checks now. It's not really "sacrificing" its core (as much.) I also think Russia could have very well been trying to get rid of (potential) dissenters and internal political opposition in the early going. If a military faction had been planning a coup, sending them into battle in the first wave when the casualties are highest is an effective way to "de-fang" that situation. These things are often operating on multiple levels.

While Russia did have logistics issues, those weren't really tactical errors so much as vulnerable necessities (or potentially getting rid of a problem while seeming to be doing something else.) They may have thought Ukraine wasn't able to (or simply wouldn't) exploit the vulnerabilities, but to do what Russia wanted to do they had to get troops and supplies in place. Putin is willing to sacrifice pawns to get his strategy in place. He has a lot more pawns, and honestly seems to see all his "pieces" in that light. Russia advanced to get to important spots. Ukraine's counteroffensive advanced without getting to places of much strategic value. Ukraine sacrificed a decent chunk of its core without much to show for it. Sure, they're covering more of the chessboard, but they're not really controlling it. They more have spread out pieces that are now more vulnerable, and are "leaving their king (Kyiv) undefended (/less defended.)"

Maybe that's not accurate. It does seem to be how the pieces fit together in the big picture to me.

It seems people are overselling Russia's problems and underselling Ukraine's. I think it comes back to group dynamics. In the US, "we" tend to see Ukraine as the "us" side and Russia as the "them" side. It's "natural" to give the "us" side more benefit of the doubt while finding more flaws in the "them" side.

While not having an "us" side can be a miserable existence at times, I feel like it gives me a somewhat more balanced perspective of "them" and "them." I can still acknowledge their flaws without feeling like their flaws are my flaws and struggling with that cognitive dissonance. That cognitive dissonance all too often seems to result in minimizing or ignoring "us" flaws.

I'd prefer the Ukrainian "them" to win. I'm not sure how biased the perspectives are, and, thus, the likelihood of that happening, though.

Lol, I apologize if I come off like a self righteous A-hole. Behaviors observed in childhood are easy to find one's self emulating. I'm coming to understand how feelings can affect perception.

Welp. I was going to send you a response and then my screen refreshed and I lost it all. Great stuff. I like the discussion and wanted to let you know I don't think you're self-righteous.

Hopefully I'll get to remaking the point later.

I try not to be. I definitely can be when roused, though.

Hate it when technology decides not to cooperate.

That’s why I use chat gpt as my own personal diary, that way I can ask homeboy what I said the night before when I was stoned out of my mind.

I definitely understand your perspective. I am starting to think that you and I are kinda saying the same thing. My perspective is "what can be done to get Ukraine back to kicking butt".

Really, I'm just posting to say that I appreciate the discussion.

A word of warning rather you actually do this or not, there is a 100% chance your ChatGPT interactions are being used to improve the AI. Sometimes that involves human eyes. So keep that in mind until you get a locally run llm. There are a ton of tutorials for that YouTube, FYI.

bro its cool, I welcome our new Skynet overlords with open arms. little ole me cant do anything about it, so oh well.

jc


Western air bases that host Ukraine's F-16s are 'legitimate' targets for Russia, says Putin

https://www.yahoo.com/news/western-air-bases-host-ukraines-115906226.html

If there's any threat that I want Putin to finally make good on, it's this one.

Please, bro. Do it.

Yeah, no kidding, that would be suicidal especially hitting a Polish base. Pols still hate the Russians for not helping them fight off the NAZIS early bliz WWII.

Exclusive-Iran alerted Russia to security threat before Moscow attack, sources say

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-iran-alerted-russia-security-090438109.html

So, even their homies gave them a heads up about the attack.

but we know who was getting blamed regardless of the facts. Ukraine.

edit: just popped up in my head: lots of similarities between this attack and the attack in Israel.

You know what, you’re right. Think about it. If Iran warned Russia and Putin still allowed the attack, what does that say? And if the US warned Israel and Netanyahu still allowed the attacks to happen, what does that say?

It says maybe people should question Netanyahu's words and actions a little more than they do.

Putin as well

And what will US do about it? Nothing.

The GOPer Congress first order of biz is impeachment.

Every nation involved in war or conflict uses misinformation to bolster their side of things. Each and everyone of them has a vested interest in portraying themselves as the good guy and their adversaries as the bad guys. So none of them can be taken at their word. The only people that can be trusted are those that have no dog in the fight. Outside humanitarian groups are a good place to start. All they are there for is to feed hungry people and provide medical aid.

This is an honest question, how do Republicans explain the trump defense of Vladimir Putin?

I’m not sure how he is not at least global enemy #2, today, right now?

I don't get it, either.

Any time Putin's name is brought up, Trump's demeanor/body language changes from 'Boss Daddy' to 'whipped-azz b#' mode in a New York second. It's crazy... but it's always been there for all to see, via hundreds of video moments that are now part of The Public Domain.

And now, it seems as though an entire party of America's political system is ready to follow him, no matter what.


Repeat: I don't get it, either. And the fact that I can't find a way to make sense of/understand it concerns me.
Deeply.

I can only speak to my Republican friends, they are more concerned about China. They aren’t concerned about a brutal dictator, marching though Europe. Sound familiar?

I have a Republican friend that rips Lebron James, and says nothing about Putin. Very 1950s American flag.

The House passes billions in aid for Ukraine and Israel after months of struggle

BY STEPHEN GROVES AND LISA MASCARO
Updated 2:04 PM EDT, April 20, 2024
link


WASHINGTON (AP) — The House is pushing swiftly through a series of votes in a rare Saturday session to approve $95 billion in foreign aid for Ukraine, Israel and other U.S. allies, Democrats and Republicans joining together after a grueling monthslong fight over renewed American support for repelling Russia’s invasion.

With overwhelming support, the House approved the Ukraine portion, a $61 billion aid package, in a strong showing of American backing as lawmakers race to deliver a fresh round of U.S. support to the war-torn ally. Some lawmakers cheered, waiving blue-and-yellow flags of Ukraine.

The $26 billion package aiding Israel and providing humanitarian relief to citizens of Gaza also easily cleared. Each segment of the aid package faced an up-or-down vote. A national security bill that includes a provision forcing sale of the popular platform TikTok was quickly approved, as was another supporting Indo-Pacific allies.

The unusual process is allowing unique coalitions to form around the bills, pushing them forward. The whole package will go to the Senate, where passage in the coming days is nearly assured. President Joe Biden has promised to sign it immediately.

“The eyes of the world are upon us, and history will judge what we do here and now,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The weekend scene presented a striking display of congressional action after months of dysfunction and stalemate fueled by Republicans, who hold the majority but are deeply split over foreign aid, particularly for Ukraine as it fights Russia’s invasion. Speaker Mike Johnson, putting his job on the line, is relying on Democratic support to ensure the military and humanitarian package is approved, and help flows to the U.S. allies.

The morning opened with a somber and serious debate and unusual sense of purpose, Republican and Democratic leaders united to urge swift passage that would ensure the United States supports its allies and remains a leader on the world stage. The House’s visitor galleries crowded with onlookers.

“Sometimes when you are living history, as we are today, you don’t understand the significance of the actions of the votes that we make on this House floor, of the effect that it will have down the road,” said New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “This is a historic moment.”

Passage through the House would clear away the biggest hurdle to Biden’s funding request, first made in October as Ukraine’s military supplies began to run low. The GOP-controlled House, skeptical of U.S. support for Ukraine, struggled for months over what to do, first demanding that any assistance be tied to policy changes at the U.S.-Mexico order, only to immediately reject a bipartisan Senate offer along those very lines.

Reaching an endgame has been an excruciating lift for Johnson that has tested both his resolve and his support among Republicans, with a small but growing number now openly urging his removal from the speaker’s office. Yet congressional leaders cast the votes as a turning point in history — an urgent sacrifice as U.S. allies are beleaguered by wars and threats from continental Europe to the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific.

“The only thing that has kept terrorists and tyrants at bay is the perception of a strong America, that we would stand strong,” Johnson said this week. “This is a very important message that we are going to send the world.”


Opponents, particularly the hard-right Republicans from Johnson’s majority, argued that the U.S. should focus on the home front, addressing domestic border security and the nation’s rising debt load, and they warned against spending more money, which largely flows to American defense manufacturers, to produce weaponry used overseas.

Still, Congress has seen a stream of world leaders visit in recent months, from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, all but pleading with lawmakers to approve the aid. Globally, the delay left many questioning America’s commitment to its allies.


At stake has also been one of Biden’s top foreign policy priorities — halting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s advance in Europe. After engaging in quiet talks with Johnson, the president quickly endorsed Johnson’s plan this week, paving the way for Democrats to give their rare support to clear the procedural hurdles needed for a final vote.

“We have a responsibility, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans to defend democracy wherever it is at risk,” the House Democratic leader, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, said during the debate.

While aid for Ukraine will likely win a majority in both parties, a significant number of progressive Democrats are expected to vote against the bill aiding Israel as they demand an end to the bombardment of Gaza that has killed thousands of civilians.

At the same time, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has loomed large over the fight, weighing in from afar via social media statements and direct phone calls with lawmakers as he tilts the GOP to a more isolationist stance with his “America First” brand of politics.

Ukraine’s defense once enjoyed robust, bipartisan support in Congress, but as the war enters its third year, a bulk of Republicans oppose further aid. Trump ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., offered an amendment to zero out the money, but it was rejected.

At one point, Trump’s opposition essentially doomed the bipartisan Senate proposal on border security. This past week, Trump also issued a social media post that questioned why European nations were not giving more money to Ukraine, though he spared Johnson from criticism and said Ukraine’s survival was important.

Still, the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus has derided the legislation as the “America Last” foreign wars package and urged lawmakers to defy Republican leadership and oppose it because the bills do not include border security measures.

Johnson’s hold on the speaker’s gavel has also grown more tenuous in recent days as three Republicans, led by Greene, supported a “motion to vacate” that can lead to a vote on removing the speaker. Egged on by far-right personalities, she is also being joined by a growing number of lawmakers including Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who is urging Johnson to voluntarily step aside, and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.

The speaker’s office has been working furiously to drum up support for the bill, as well as for Johnson, R-La.

The package includes several Republican priorities that Democrats endorse, or at least are willing to accept. Those include proposals that allow the U.S. to seize frozen Russian central bank assets to rebuild Ukraine; impose sanctions on Iran, Russia, China and criminal organizations that traffic fentanyl; and legislation to require the China-based owner of the popular video app TikTok to sell its stake within a year or face a ban in the United States.

Still, the all-out push to get the bills through Congress is a reflection not only of politics, but realities on the ground in Ukraine. Top lawmakers on national security committees, who are privy to classified briefings, have grown gravely concerned about the situation in recent weeks. Russia has increasingly used satellite-guided gliding bombs — which allow planes to drop them from a safe distance — to pummel Ukrainian forces beset by a shortage of troops and ammunition.

I’m saying right now, Johnson will not be removed. Dem leadership puts on yeat another master-class from the minority. Jeffries will be your next dem speaker and there is absolutely no doubt.

Thanks to Mike Johnson for FINALLY doing the right thing under ridiculous circumstances.

Maybe this is just my hope clouding my perception, but it seems to me that MTG's shtick is getting old where it holds the most weight... within her own party.

I don't think at this point they can continue down the path of playing to her and a hand full of the extremists whims. The dysfunction on the part of Republicans in the House to provide a functioning government is not a good look heading into the 2024 election and I feel they know they need to change course. If it takes the Democrats to save Johnson's job it will look even worse for them.

Yep they kinda painted themselves right into a corner. Hard to jump out without mucking it up again.

That's why a decent part of me hopes she goes through with her motion to vacate. I want her to overplay her hand finally stoke the ire of more people like Tony Gonzalez who have at least acknowledged them as "scumbags." If the motion was shot down because of the Democrats, that's a horrible look for her. If the House falls into another disarray of failed votes for another Speaker, that's still another horrible look for her. It's a lose-lose, but she's trying to keep up her "brand" so I say, let her do it.

Senate overwhelmingly passes aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan with big bipartisan vote

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has passed $95 billion in war aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, sending the legislation to President Joe Biden after months of delays and contentious debate over how involved the United States should be in foreign wars.

The bill passed the Senate on an overwhelming 79-18 vote late Tuesday after the House had approved the package Saturday. Biden, who worked with congressional leaders to win support, said in a statement immediately after passage that he will sign it Wednesday and start the process of sending weapons to Ukraine, which has been struggling to hold its front lines against Russia.

“Tonight, a bipartisan majority in the Senate joined the House to answer history’s call at this critical inflection point,” Biden said.

The legislation would also send $26 billion in wartime assistance to Israel and humanitarian relief to citizens of Gaza, and $8 billion to counter Chinese threats in Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific. U.S. officials said about $1 billion of the aid could be on its way shortly, with the bulk following in coming weeks.

In an interview with The Associated Press shortly before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that if Congress hadn’t passed the aid, “America would have paid a price economically, politically, militarily.”

“Very few things we have done have risen to this level of historic importance,” he said.

On the Senate floor, Schumer said the Senate was sending a message to U.S. allies: “We will stand with you.”

Schumer and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made passage of the legislation a top priority, agreeing to tie the Ukraine and Israel aid to help ensure passage and arguing there could be dire consequences for the United States and many of its global allies if Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression is left unchecked. They worked with House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, to overcome seemingly intractable Republican opposition to the Ukraine aid, in particular — eventually winning large majorities in both chambers.

McConnell said in a separate interview before the vote that it “is one of the biggest days in the time that I’ve been here.”

“At least on this episode, I think we turned the tables on the isolationists,” McConnell said.

In the end, 31 Republicans voted for the aid package — nine more than when the Senate passed a similar version in February, and a majority of the Senate GOP conference. The House approved the package in a series of four votes on Saturday, with the Ukraine portion passing 311-112.

The $61 billion for Ukraine comes as the war-torn country desperately needs new firepower and as Russian President Vladimir Putin has stepped up his attacks. Ukrainian soldiers have struggled as Russia has seized the momentum on the battlefield and gained significant territory.

Bidentold Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday the U.S. will send badly needed air defense weaponry as soon as the legislation is passed.

“The President has assured me that the package will be approved quickly and that it will be powerful, strengthening our air defense as well as long-range and artillery capabilities,” Zelenskyy said in a post on X on Monday.

In an effort to gain more votes, Republicans in the House majority also added a bill to the foreign aid package that could ban the social media app TikTok in the U.S. if its Chinese owners do not sell their stake within a year. That legislation had wide bipartisan support in both chambers.

The TikTok bill was one of several tweaks Johnson made to the package the Senate passed in February as he tried to move the bill through the House despite significant opposition within his conference. Other additions include a stipulation that $9 billion of the economic assistance to Ukraine is in the form of “forgivable loans"; provisions that allow the U.S. to seize frozen Russian central bank assets to rebuild Ukraine; and bills to impose sanctions on Iran, Russia, China and criminal organizations that traffic fentanyl.

Those changes appears to have brought some of the nine additional Senate Republicans on board, bringing support to more than half of McConnell’s conference.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a longtime hawk who voted against the foreign aid package in February because it wasn’t paired with legislation to stem migration at the border, was one of the Republicans who switched their votes. “If we don’t help Ukraine now, this war will spread, and Americans who are not involved will be involved,” Graham said.

The package has had broad congressional support since Biden first requested the money last summer. But congressional leaders had to navigate strong opposition from a growing number of conservatives who question U.S. involvement in foreign wars and argue that Congress should be focused instead on the surge of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, a Republican who is a close ally to Donald Trump, said that despite the strong showing of support for funding Ukraine’s defense, opposition is growing among Republicans.

“The United States is spread too thin,” Vance said, “And that argument, I think, is winning the American people and it’s slowly winning the Senate, but it’s not going to happen overnight.”

The growing fault line in the GOP between those conservatives who are skeptical of the aid and the more traditional “Reagan Republicans” who strongly support it may prove to be career-defining for the two top Republican leaders.

McConnell, who has made the Ukraine aid a top priority, said last month that he would step down from leadership after becoming increasingly distanced from many in his conference on the Ukraine aid and other issues. Johnson, who said he put the bills on the floor after praying for guidance, faces threats of an ouster after a majority of Republicans voted against the aid to Ukraine.

Johnson said after House passage that “we did our work here, and I think history will judge it well.”

Opponents in the Senate, like the House, included some left-wing senators who are opposed to aiding Israel as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has bombarded Gaza and killed thousands of civilians. Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., voted against the package.

“We must end our complicity in this terrible war,” Sanders said.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-ukraine-aid-tiktok-senate-8fe738b17e5c4b2636bc0de11b2620b7

This is a good thing, I’m glad cooler heads prevailed.

The bigger issue is how the leader of the free world, gave vp not only a pass, the red carpet. This isn’t a hyperbolic synopsis of the American policial system. This should have been easy ethics and morals, from day one.

BROKEN ARSENAL Putin has lost 450,000 soldiers, 3,000 tanks & vehicles and nearly 500 aircraft in Ukraine, says UK intelligence
The Sun revealed in February that Mad Vlad was turning to rusting Cold War tanks after suffering huge vehicle losses on the frontline
Jerome StarkeyEllie Doughty
Published: 8:53 ET, Apr 29 2024Updated: 10:29 ET, Apr 29 2024

RUSSIA has lost an enormous 450,000 soldiers and 3,000 precious tanks in Ukraine, according to a UK tally.

The humiliating blow for Putin means Moscow has lost an average of 560 troops a day since he unleashed his bloodbath invasion two years ago.


It is 100,000 more than the previous UK estimate shared in February by Britain’s Defence Intelligence.

And Russia's losses have surged to 1,300 troops a day in just the last two months.

The eye-watering casualty figures don’t include mercenary groups like Wagner who were famously slaughtered during “human wave” assaults in the meat grinder battle of Bakhmut last year.

In December the UK said 20,000 of Wagner's soldiers had been killed and another 40,000 had been injured.

The latest figures also don't account for the humiliating “tens of thousands” of soldiers who have deserted Putin's armed forces.

They refer to the Russian soldiers taken out of battle by death or injury at the hands of Kyiv's impressive and resilient army.

Armed Forces Minister Leo Doherty also estimates Moscow has lost almost 3,000 tanks – up from 2,000 a year ago.

The Sun exclusively revealed in February that Putin had lost almost all of his valuable tank force since invading Ukraine.


We reported that Russia had been forced to turn to mothballed and rusting weapons from the Cold War after losing almost 3,000 tanks.

Former Brigadier Ben Barry, who served in the British Army, told The Sun that Putin’s crumbling forces had maybe two to three years left worth of resources.


Former Scots Guards officer Doherty said of the latest intelligence estimate: “We estimate that approximately 450,000 Russian military personnel have been killed or wounded, and tens of thousands more have already deserted since the start of the conflict.”

He added: “The number of personnel killed serving in Russian private military companies is not clear.

“We also estimate that over 10,000 Russian armoured vehicles, including nearly 3,000 main battle tanks, 109 fixed wing aircraft, 136 helicopters, 346 unmanned aerial vehicles, 23 naval vessels of all classes, and over 1,500 artillery systems of all types have been destroyed, abandoned, or captured by Ukraine since the start of the conflict.”

Death tolls are closely guarded secrets and notoriously hard to track as both sides have an incentive to play down their own losses and exaggerate their enemy’s toll.

The latest UK estimate is broadly inline with Kyiv’s claims that Russia has lost 470,000 troops since the start of the full scale invasion on Feb 24 2022.

Previously UK officials have said Russia’s dead to wounded ratio was roughly one to four, which suggests at least 90,000 Russian soldiers have died.

A joint investigation by the BBC and independent Mediazona found at least 50,000 Russian soldiers had died.

They trawled cemeteries for fresh gravestones, official public recored and death announcements shared by friends and relatives on social media.

And they said the real figure was “likely to be much higher”.

In December Britain said around 50,000 Russian troops had been killed as well as 20,000 Wagner mercenaries.

The latest UK claim that Russia has lost almost 3,000 tanks chimes exactly with the Oryx blog that tracks visually confirmed losses.

It says Russia has lost 2,936 tanks of which 1,960 were destroyed, 514 were captured, 308 were abandoned and 154 were damaged.

The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said Russia had “lost more than 3,000 main battle tanks” in February.

It said: “Its full-scale invasion has cost Russia more than 3,000 main battle tanks, roughly as many as the Kremlin had in its active inventory before February 2022.

“Russia has been drawing on stored equipment to replenish losses.”


Ukraine’s President Zelensky said in February that 31,000 of his soldiers had died – but western officials have hinted the true toll is much higher.


https://www.the-sun.com/news/112178...es-tanks-soldiers-aircraft-intelligence/

The saddest part is that he loses 0:00 minutes of sleep, despite that figure. He'd gladly lose that again just to take Kharkiv.

If you truly look at his entire body of work (Georgia, Chechnya, Bucha, etc), and the people he's put in various positions (Kadyrov, Lvova-Belova, Surovikin), I truly think he is every bit as bad as nefarious a person as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the like. He has more of a disadvantage in counter-resistance, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would kill every able-bodied male in Russia if it meant he could get all the way back to Germany or beyond.

I also just want to reiterate something I've said, because for some reason, the far right all of a sudden decided to become Neville Chamberlain on this issue.

Pull out a world map.

Look at where Ukraine is.

If Russia takes Ukraine, it will have a land bridge to Moldova, where there is already a separatist Russian segment.

It would only be logical in Putin's mind to then take over Moldova. He has the EXACT same cause there against a much weaker, smaller, and poorer adversary than Ukraine.

A Ukraine takeover would also give Russia a land connection to Hungary and Slovakia. Both countries have administrations that are Putin-sympathizers. Both countries would go more hard in the paint for him if he was on their doorstep. Full flip essentially. They already go out of their way to protect his interests and hold up aid to Ukraine, just with Europe.

Serbia is already a pro-Russian state.

Putin has already turned Belarus into a puppet state.

If Putin takes over Ukraine and Moldova, Romania is essentially surrounded by Russian puppet states/sympathizers.

Around half of Poland's border would also directly touch Russia (Kaliningrad) or Russian puppet/sympathizer states.

If you think we spend a lot of resources already, imagine how much we would spend with that setup.

Ukraine is more of a linch pin than people realize.

Putin knows all this.

Not only is Russia losing an incredible number of soldiers, but the way they are perishing is just ghastly. Ukraine has developed their use of drones to an incredible level, for both surveillance and delivery of explosives. There is just nowhere to hide from them, they are able to drop them into foxholes, APC and tank hatches, windows in buildings, etc. There's usually an accompanying drone filming the carnage. There are a number of channels on Telegram showing video clips. Watch at your own risk. There's a special place in hell for someone that sends his own people into that situation only for material gain.

That and the Houthi issue are both game changers in the way we have to think about warfare. If you can take out a multi-million dollar tank or a million dollar missile using something that costs a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, it becomes quite asymmetrical.