Russia & Ukraine

UsualName said:
In this case, I definitely support arming the Ukrainians. Whatever we can give to Ukraine to defend itself we should and then we should give some more.
More...

There should be some order to it though, after the Balkans war criminal gangs across Europe had excessive access to military weapons. Grenades, RPGs and such were being using in gangland feuds for years.

Its a matter of time before these more extreme toys like javelins and star streaks get into the hands of terrorists.
 
easymon1 said:
View attachment 284558
More...

zpoos.jpg


easymon1 said:
View attachment 284553
More...
 
Frederick Foresight said:
Rand Paul stalls Senate passage of $40 billion in Ukraine aid

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-ukraine-aid-senate-unanimous-consent/

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul defied leaders of both parties Thursday and delayed until next week Senate approval of an additional $40 billion to help Ukraine and its allies withstand Russia's three-month old invasion.

With the Senate poised to debate and vote on the package of military and economic aid, Paul denied leaders the unanimous agreement they needed to proceed. The bipartisan measure, backed by President Joe Biden, underscores U.S. determination to reinforce its support for Ukraine's outnumbered forces.

The legislation has been approved overwhelmingly by the House and has strong bipartisan support in the Senate. Final passage is not in doubt.

Even so, Paul's objection was a departure from the overwhelming sentiment in Congress in favor of quickly helping Ukraine, as it fights to withstand Vladimir Putin's brutal invasion and tries to discourage him from escalating the war.

It was also a rebellion against his fellow Kentucky Republican, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who on Thursday had called on "both sides" to "help us pass this urgent funding bill today."

Paul, a libertarian who often opposes U.S. intervention abroad, said he wanted language inserted into the bill, without a vote, that would have an inspector general scrutinize the new spending. He has a long history of demanding last-minute changes by holding up or threatening to delay bills on the brink of passage, including measures dealing with lynching, sanctioning Russia, preventing a federal shutdown, the defense budget, government surveillance and providing health care to the Sept. 11 attack first responders.

Democrats and McConnell opposed Paul's push and offered to have a vote on his language. Paul was likely to lose that vote and rejected the offer.

Paul, who unsuccessfully sought his party's 2016 presidential nomination, argued that the added spending was more than the U.S. spends on many domestic programs, was comparable to Russia's entire defense budget and would deepen federal deficits and worsen inflation. Last year's budget deficit was almost $2.8 trillion but is likely headed downward, and the bill's spending is less than 0.2% of the size of the U.S. economy, suggesting its impact on inflation would be negligible.

"No matter how sympathetic the cause, my oath of office is to the national security of the United States of America," Paul said. "We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy."

Democrats said they were objecting to Paul's plan because it would expand the powers of an existing inspector general whose current purview is limited to Afghanistan. That would deny Mr. Biden the chance past presidents have had to make an appointment to the post, they said.

"It's clear from the junior senator from Kentucky's remarks, he doesn't want to aid Ukraine," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. "All he will accomplish with his actions here today is to delay that aid, not to stop it."

Schumer and McConnell stood nearly side-by-side as they tried pushing the legislation forward.

"They're only asking for the resources they need to defend themselves against this deranged invasion," McConnell said of the Ukrainians. "And they need this help right now."

The House voted 368-57 on Tuesday to approve the measure. All Democrats and most Republicans backed it, though every "no" vote came from the GOP.

The bipartisan backing for Ukraine has been partly driven by accounts of Russian atrocities against Ukrainian civilians that have been impossible to ignore. It also reflects strategic concerns about letting Putin seize European territory unanswered as his assault on his neighbor to the west grinds into its 12th week.

"Helping Ukraine is not an instance of mere philanthropy," McConnell said. "It bears directly on America's national security and vital interests that Russia's naked aggression not succeed and carries significant costs."

Biden administration officials have said they expect the latest aid measure to last through September. But with Ukraine taking heavy military and civilian losses and no sense of when the fighting might end, Congress will ultimately face decisions about how much more aid to provide at a time of huge U.S. budget deficits and a risk of recession that could demand added spending at home.

The latest bill, when added to the $13.6 billion Congress approved in March, would push American aid to the region well above $50 billion. For perspective, that would total $6 billion more than the U.S. spent on military and economic aid around the world in 2019, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The push toward passage came as Russia continued blasting Ukrainian forces and cities in southern and eastern portions of the country. Reflecting international concerns prompted by the assault, Finland's leaders announced their support for joining NATO and Sweden seemed not far behind.

Mr. Biden asked Congress for $33 billion two weeks ago. It didn't take lawmakers long to add $3.4 billion to his requests for both military and humanitarian programs.

The measure includes $6 billion for Ukraine for intelligence, equipment and training for its forces, plus $4 billion in financing to help Kyiv and NATO allies build up their militaries.

There's $8.7 billion for the Pentagon to rebuild stocks of weapons it has shipped to Ukraine and $3.9 billion for U.S. troops in the region.

The measure also includes $8.8 billion to keep the Kyiv government functioning, more than $5 billion to provide food to countries around the world that rely on Ukrainian crops devastated by the fighting and $900 million to teach English and provide other services to Ukrainian refugees who have moved to the United States.

The biggest hurdle to rapid approval of the assistance was cleared this week when Biden and Democrats dropped their demand to include billions more in the measure to bolster U.S. efforts to counter the coronavirus pandemic. Republicans want separate COVID-19 legislation to be a battleground for an election-season fight over immigration that divides Democrats.
More...

"Stalling" is an DNC and lobbyists attempt to misframe the real issue. The real issue is transparency and accountability with US taxpayer money in supposed support of Ukraine, a country epically known for corruption.

Transparency and accountability are not Democrat strong points unless those qualities are being demanded from Trump, it seems.

While I feel it is in our best interest to support Ukraine, would not support be maximized if we took steps to ensure the money spent was being used for the task at hand? It has been said that only 15% of charitable donations actually goes to the receiving organization. Our Government must to do much better than that to avoid being insubordinate to the American people and short changing Ukraine's long term prospects.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
The French are not helpful.

Some may recall that after Saddam was captured and interrogated he said that he let things go as long as he did - which resulted in American invasion- because he had "assurances" backchannel from the French that the Americans were bluffing.
More...

I think the French and Russians have historical alliances , they can't be trusted on Russia . And the French also have EU domination aspirations .
 
Frederick Foresight said:
Yeah, I know. You would rather have tax cuts for the rich so that it can trickle down on everyone else in the form of golden rain:

View attachment 284530

If you could just get past your first order thinking, you would realize that spending money on what is both the right thing to do and serves national security is money far better spent.
More...

Then it would look like how things are in Russia. A few billionaires who steal everything and the mass living (if lucky) in a shag without running water, heating , toilets or even windows.
 
CaptainObvious said:
Congress itself is a far greater threat to our freedom and security that some inept Russkies, or anyone/anything else for that matter. There is no close second, the government and all of it's agencies are what's going to bring us down. Rand Paul 2024, if they don't take him out first.
More...

If you are so afraid from that, why don't you move to the land of your dreams, RUSSIA?
There is no risk with Russia for the US?
Never heard about threats from Russia with nucleair bombs, hypersonic missiles... against the US?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-ca...uld-use-nuclear-weapons-cia-chief-2022-04-14/

You sound so stupid that I think you are a Russian. Only they can tell such a stupidities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top