|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Apr 22, 2024 8:58:27 GMT
So Russia captured a Ukraine nuclear power plant and then proceeded to rupture one or more of the 6 reactor cores.
That is a lot of radiation carried on the wind to the United States and not all of it can be attributed
to nuclear weapons tests conducted by Kim Jong un.
Aside from all that, Ukraine still has not received the fighter jets they were promised, or the long range ammo.
Does the funding count for much beyond making sure Ukraine doesn't run out of medical supplies and instant coffee or hot chocolate.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Apr 22, 2024 9:15:52 GMT
But the aid did not get a majority of Republicans. So, will the MAGA bunch move to oust Speaker Mike Johnson? Such an attempt will surely fail. Doubt it. Ousting Mike Johnson will ensure the Democrats will gain the House until the election.
Rumors around several high ranking Republicans that may also mean Trump can be taken off the ballots because of it. But that's just a rumor.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 22, 2024 9:26:07 GMT
I get the feeling that in by the end of the year a new Ukraine aid package will be the subject of a new debate in US congress and that the situation in Ukraine will have not changed much. "Ukraine is winning: they need more money to finish the job." "Ukraine is in a stalemate: they need more money to break it." "Ukraine is losing: they need more money to they can turn things around." Bottom line, no matter the situation: they need more money.
Our politicians' retirement funds depend on it
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmywynn on Apr 22, 2024 9:28:48 GMT
I get the feeling that in by the end of the year a new Ukraine aid package will be the subject of a new debate in US congress and that the situation in Ukraine will have not changed much. "Ukraine is winning: they need more money to finish the job." "Ukraine is in a stalemate: they need more money to break it." "Ukraine is losing: they need more money to they can turn things around." Bottom line, no matter the situation: they need more money.
Our politicians' retirement funds depend on it
While I am 100 percent Team Ukraine, that is way way too much money. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Apr 22, 2024 12:47:08 GMT
I get the feeling that in by the end of the year a new Ukraine aid package will be the subject of a new debate in US congress and that the situation in Ukraine will have not changed much. "Ukraine is winning: they need more money to finish the job." "Ukraine is in a stalemate: they need more money to break it." "Ukraine is losing: they need more money to they can turn things around." Bottom line, no matter the situation: they need more money. Not quite. The bottom line is not "No matter the situation." The bottom line is "As long as Ukraine still has a fight to make against a Russian invasion, they need more money." In the meantime, the long delay caused by Republicans has allowed Putin to fortify his position. Hopefully, that has not become irreversible. |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 22, 2024 12:57:59 GMT
I get the feeling that in by the end of the year a new Ukraine aid package will be the subject of a new debate in US congress and that the situation in Ukraine will have not changed much. "Ukraine is winning: they need more money to finish the job." "Ukraine is in a stalemate: they need more money to break it." "Ukraine is losing: they need more money to they can turn things around." Bottom line, no matter the situation: they need more money. Not quite. The bottom line is not "No matter the situation." The bottom line is "As long as Ukraine still has a fight to make against a Russian invasion, they need more money."In the meantime, the long delay caused by Republicans has allowed Putin to fortify his position. Hopefully, that has not become irreversible. It doesn't matter if Ukraine is winning, losing or in a stalemate. That was my point They will always need more money. And they always find a way to justify it. What is Ukraine suppose to achieve to for the West to declare victory? |
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Apr 22, 2024 13:02:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Apr 22, 2024 13:36:22 GMT
Not quite. The bottom line is not "No matter the situation." The bottom line is "As long as Ukraine still has a fight to make against a Russian invasion, they need more money."In the meantime, the long delay caused by Republicans has allowed Putin to fortify his position. Hopefully, that has not become irreversible. It doesn't matter if Ukraine is winning, losing or in a stalemate. That was my point They will always need more money. And they always find a way to justify it. What is Ukraine suppose to achieve to for the West to declare victory? Roughly speaking, Ukraine wants to take back what Putin took with his invasion. And victory is when Ukraine, the U.S. and our NATO allies are satisfied that that goal has been sufficiently reached. |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 22, 2024 14:14:21 GMT
It doesn't matter if Ukraine is winning, losing or in a stalemate. That was my point They will always need more money. And they always find a way to justify it. What is Ukraine suppose to achieve to for the West to declare victory? And victory is when Ukraine, the U.S. and our NATO allies are satisfied that that goal has been sufficiently reached. And this money is not going to help Ukraine achieve that given that this money is not solving Ukraine manpower and ammo issues. I literally saw BBC article saying that this money was going to slow the Russian advance. Slow, not stop, not reverse. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68868399It would be helpful if Ukraine, US and NATO were clear with the public what victory looks like and how we're going to achieve this but it's sounding like Afghanistan. Money and lives wasted for nothing even though we knew before the withdrawal that the armed forces had no idea what victory looked like or any exit strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Apr 22, 2024 14:24:29 GMT
Roughly speaking, Ukraine wants to take back what Putin took with his invasion. And victory is when Ukraine, the U.S. and our NATO allies are satisfied that that goal has been sufficiently reached. And this money is not going to help Ukraine achieve that given that this money is not solving Ukraine manpower and ammo issues. I literally saw BBC article saying that this money was going to slow the Russian advance. Slow, not stop, not reverse. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68868399It would be helpful if Ukraine, US and NATO were clear with the public what victory looks like and how we're going to achieve this but it's sounding like Afghanistan. Money and lives wasted for nothing even though we knew before the withdrawal that the armed forces had no idea what victory looked like or any exit strategy. As long as we are only providing money and weapons we won't need an exit strategy. We only need to decide whether this continued support is worthwhile. And Biden and Congress will need to continue to make the case to Americans (knowing there's always going to be some opposition.) |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 22, 2024 15:29:12 GMT
And this money is not going to help Ukraine achieve that given that this money is not solving Ukraine manpower and ammo issues. I literally saw BBC article saying that this money was going to slow the Russian advance. Slow, not stop, not reverse. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68868399It would be helpful if Ukraine, US and NATO were clear with the public what victory looks like and how we're going to achieve this but it's sounding like Afghanistan. Money and lives wasted for nothing even though we knew before the withdrawal that the armed forces had no idea what victory looked like or any exit strategy. As long as we are only providing money and weapons we won't need an exit strategy. We only need to decide whether this continued support is worthwhile. And Biden and Congress will need to continue to make the case to Americans (knowing there's always going to be some opposition.) If it's impossible for Ukraine to back to the 1991 borders which is apparently the definition of victory that the West continues to pursue, then the continued support is not worthwhile. |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Apr 22, 2024 15:48:55 GMT
If it's impossible for Ukraine to back to the 1991 borders which is apparently the definition of victory that the West continues to pursue, then the continued support is not worthwhile. I doubt that the West will support Ukraine until it has all the area of 1991 back. If that was true the Western reaction on Russia taking Crimea about a decade ago would have been stronger. My guess is that what exactly will be defined as 'victory' will be a topic for behind closed curtains. Knowing this exact aim would give Russia a strategic advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 22, 2024 16:06:05 GMT
If it's impossible for Ukraine to back to the 1991 borders which is apparently the definition of victory that the West continues to pursue, then the continued support is not worthwhile. I doubt that the West will support Ukraine until it has all the area of 1991 back. If that was true the Western reaction on Russia taking Crimea about a decade ago would have been stronger. My guess is that what exactly will be defined as 'victory' will be a topic for behind closed curtains. Knowing this exact aim would give Russia a strategic advantage. I don't even think the Ukraine can retake the Donbass or sever the land bridge that Russians have from Crimea to the Donbass. The West is still lagging behind Russia in production of artillery shells and this is not something that will be corrected anytime soon. It would probably take a couple of years to do that and the clock might be ticking in Asia and then what? Goodbye US support because the Indo Pacific region is far more important than the eastern parts of Ukraine. Also given the Western military adventures in the last 20 years, I'm very skeptical of Western leadership on matters of war. |
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 22, 2024 17:50:28 GMT
Getting people to recognize it and put aside other divisions is like pulling teeth. This thread is a textbook example of how they divert the conversation away from the point. Sadly I'm seeing a lot of Facebook memes on "Moscow Marge", I get why a leftist wouldn't generally care for MTG, but on the issue of blocking military spending for proxy wars, any real progressive should temporarily stand with her. Since we're talking about many people dying, any toxicity attached to her name is outweighed by the seriousness of the issue at hand. Sad now that the left supports these proxy wars. They were right on Vietnam. They started to cave with Iraq. They realized their mistake in Iraq but it was too late. The U.S. had already destabilized the Middle East. Now they pretend Ukraine is some great war of liberation. It's just more Neo-Con bullshit. I think the left wing base was solid on Iraq, the people who wavered were those in Congress and I think they knew what was going on but the big money leaned on them. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Apr 22, 2024 18:03:25 GMT
Sad now that the left supports these proxy wars. They were right on Vietnam. They started to cave with Iraq. They realized their mistake in Iraq but it was too late. The U.S. had already destabilized the Middle East. Now they pretend Ukraine is some great war of liberation. It's just more Neo-Con bullshit. I think the left wing base was solid on Iraq, the people who wavered were those in Congress and I think they knew what was going on but the big money leaned on them. Well 9/11 fueled the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
