War in Ukraine

#75,276
#75,276
Simon Ateba
@simonateba

BREAKING: A report by @Reuters says President Biden rejected Russian President Putin's proposal for a ceasefire in Ukraine in late 2023 and early 2024, even as Biden pushed for another $60 billion in assistance to Ukraine to attempt to defeat Russia, a defeat that is unlikely.

NOTE: Putin wanted to freeze the conflict as it stands but the request was turned down by the United States.

NOTE: The publication reports that despite signals from Putin in 2023, both sides failed to initiate meaningful discussions as the U.S. insisted on involving Ukraine in any ceasefire talks, ultimately leading to the breakdown of the contacts.

NOTE: The bulk of the money does not leave the United States. It goes to the military-industrial complex.

NOTE: The explanation is that if you don’t enrich the complex Putin would invade NATO and your sons and daughters would fight in Europe, so it’s better to just fund the war now so that your sons and daughters are safe here in the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#75,277
#75,277
LouderVol said:
At least until 1/20/25.

The Dems will be vocally supportive of Ukraine until at least that point, maybe it lasts a couple more months before quietly being dropped.

flip for the Rs.
Click to expand...
If by some chance the Rs do take the WH you are right, the flip will switch for both. I remember when the Dems were aghast because Trump suggested sending lethal aid to Ukraine.
 
#75,278
#75,278
hog88 said:
If by some chance the Rs do take the WH you are right, the flip will switch for both. I remember when the Dems were aghast because Trump suggested sending lethal aid to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I think the good will from helping Ukraine has gone by the wayside for the Dems by this point. now its a company line thing, especially with a vocal Trump against it, they HAVE to be for it. I think once the election is over their vocal support for Ukraine will dry up because it won't be politically useful anymore.

I think Trump HAD them over a barrel in the matter until his NATO comments. Its one thing to drop Ukraine, its another to drop NATO. especially when you are ducking out for the vary purpose of the alliance.
 
#75,279
#75,279
LouderVol said:
I think the good will from helping Ukraine has gone by the wayside for the Dems by this point. now its a company line thing, especially with a vocal Trump against it, they HAVE to be for it. I think once the election is over their vocal support for Ukraine will dry up because it won't be politically useful anymore.

I think Trump HAD them over a barrel in the matter until his NATO comments. Its one thing to drop Ukraine, its another to drop NATO. especially when you are ducking out for the vary purpose of the alliance.
Click to expand...

Trump's NATO comment was awful, shows why he can't be POTUS again. Not that the premise was wrong, his delivery was.

I'd bet the most ardent supporters of Ukraine in this thread would be on the opposition side if Trump were in the WH and following the same blank check policy.
 
#75,280
#75,280
jmacvols1 said:
Simon Ateba
@simonateba

BREAKING: A report by @Reuters says President Biden rejected Russian President Putin's proposal for a ceasefire in Ukraine in late 2023 and early 2024, even as Biden pushed for another $60 billion in assistance to Ukraine to attempt to defeat Russia, a defeat that is unlikely.

NOTE: Putin wanted to freeze the conflict as it stands but the request was turned down by the United States.

NOTE: The publication reports that despite signals from Putin in 2023, both sides failed to initiate meaningful discussions as the U.S. insisted on involving Ukraine in any ceasefire talks, ultimately leading to the breakdown of the contacts.

NOTE: The bulk of the money does not leave the United States. It goes to the military-industrial complex.

NOTE: The explanation is that if you don’t enrich the complex Putin would invade NATO and your sons and daughters would fight in Europe, so it’s better to just fund the war now so that your sons and daughters are safe here in the United States.
Click to expand...
I would say they are right to turn it down if the Ukrainians aren't included.

it doesn't matter if the dollars themselves don't leave the MIC, quiet different than the US btw, if the value of said dollars is leaving the country. We paid real money for those weapons at some point. WE are getting no direct benefit from sending them to Ukraine, it is money out the door.

the last note is pure propaganda fear mongering bs, the same exact message you hear from Putin. Putin is only attacking Ukraine because it is NOT part of NATO. there is no logical fear that the very thing keeping him from attacking other nations will be the thing to trigger him to attack once he is done with Ukraine.

at the very least it would take Putin another decade before he could take on NATO. he first invaded Ukraine in 2014, then unleashed his military fully in 2022, that was 8 years of build up just for Ukraine. You now have a combined NATO that is already on a higher alertness than Ukraine in 2014. and he has all his losses of equipment and manpower that hurt him.
 
#75,281
#75,281
hog88 said:
Trump's NATO comment was awful, shows why he can't be POTUS again. Not that the premise was wrong, his delivery was.

I'd bet the most ardent supporters of Ukraine in this thread would be on the opposition side if Trump were in the WH and following the same blank check policy.
Click to expand...
I would say the delivered premise was absolutely wrong. you can't encourage Putin to attack someone who isn't meeting the 2% threshold. thats unacceptable.

calling them out, threatening to boot them, or remove ourselves if enough people don't meet the 2% would all be correct premises. but thats not what Trump did, this time.

calling for the active threat to do what he wants to an active member of an alliance you are with is unacceptable and a "wrong" premise no matter how you shake it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#75,282
#75,282
LouderVol said:
I would say the delivered premise was absolutely wrong. you can't encourage Putin to attack someone who isn't meeting the 2% threshold. thats unacceptable.

calling them out, threatening to boot them, or remove ourselves if enough people don't meet the 2% would all be correct premises. but thats not what Trump did, this time.

calling for the active threat to do what he wants to an active member of an alliance you are with is unacceptable and a "wrong" premise no matter how you shake it.
Click to expand...

I don't know how old this info is but it looks like the NATO countries under the most immediate threat are meeting their obligations. It's the freeloading more western countries not meeting it.

NATO map.jpg
 
#75,283
#75,283
jmacvols1 said:
Simon Ateba
@simonateba

BREAKING: A report by @Reuters says President Biden rejected Russian President Putin's proposal for a ceasefire in Ukraine in late 2023 and early 2024, even as Biden pushed for another $60 billion in assistance to Ukraine to attempt to defeat Russia, a defeat that is unlikely.

NOTE: Putin wanted to freeze the conflict as it stands but the request was turned down by the United States.

NOTE: The publication reports that despite signals from Putin in 2023, both sides failed to initiate meaningful discussions as the U.S. insisted on involving Ukraine in any ceasefire talks, ultimately leading to the breakdown of the contacts.

NOTE: The bulk of the money does not leave the United States. It goes to the military-industrial complex.

NOTE: The explanation is that if you don’t enrich the complex Putin would invade NATO and your sons and daughters would fight in Europe, so it’s better to just fund the war now so that your sons and daughters are safe here in the United States.
Click to expand...

Imagine that…Russia the only one interested in a peaceful option..
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmacvols1
#75,287
#75,287
hog88 said:
I don't know how old this info is but it looks like the NATO countries under the most immediate threat are meeting their obligations. It's the freeloading more western countries not meeting it.

View attachment 619713
Click to expand...
which just leads to another thing that makes Trump's comment dumb. How the eff is Putin going to do whatever he wants to France or Spain? I think any of those border nations is going to want to have a say-so in what is happening around them. How are we/Trump going to handle Putin's warships/planes on active military missions sailing/flying around/thru the international waters/airspace near the complaint nation?

because I guaren-darn-tee you other NATO nations won't sit back like Trump wants to do. If Putin gets a free pass on attacking France, but that drags Poland into the war because they don't b*tch out like Trump, is Trump going to then back Poland?
 
#75,289
#75,289
LouderVol said:
which just leads to another thing that makes Trump's comment dumb. How the eff is Putin going to do whatever he wants to France or Spain? I think any of those border nations is going to want to have a say-so in what is happening around them. How are we/Trump going to handle Putin's warships/planes on active military missions sailing/flying around/thru the international waters/airspace near the complaint nation?

because I guaren-darn-tee you other NATO nations won't sit back like Trump wants to do. If Putin gets a free pass on attacking France, but that drags Poland into the war because they don't b*tch out like Trump, is Trump going to then back Poland?
Click to expand...

Yep, his comments were dumb as I said earlier. Should have just said he'd work to expel them from the alliance.
 
#75,290
#75,290
jmacvols1 said:
Simon Ateba
@simonateba

BREAKING: A report by @Reuters says President Biden rejected Russian President Putin's proposal for a ceasefire in Ukraine in late 2023 and early 2024, even as Biden pushed for another $60 billion in assistance to Ukraine to attempt to defeat Russia, a defeat that is unlikely.

NOTE: Putin wanted to freeze the conflict as it stands but the request was turned down by the United States.

NOTE: The publication reports that despite signals from Putin in 2023, both sides failed to initiate meaningful discussions as the U.S. insisted on involving Ukraine in any ceasefire talks, ultimately leading to the breakdown of the contacts.

NOTE: The bulk of the money does not leave the United States. It goes to the military-industrial complex.

NOTE: The explanation is that if you don’t enrich the complex Putin would invade NATO and your sons and daughters would fight in Europe, so it’s better to just fund the war now so that your sons and daughters are safe here in the United States.
Click to expand...

If Putin wants a ceasefire with Ukraine, then he should probably contact the duly elected president of Ukraine, rather than reaching out to Biden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wezcoast
#75,294
#75,294
volgr said:
Yes, because Ukrainian Defense Intel has been so reliable the last couple years. Sigh. Confession through projection. Every. Single. Time.
Click to expand...

Lol you do know that there are pictures of the conscripts that Russia dug up last year from occupied Crimea don't you?
1707860298260.png
1707860312112.png
 
#75,299
#75,299

BREAKING NEWS House Speaker Mike Johnson says he will NOT put $95B Israel and Ukraine Aid Bill On The Floor while Democrats vow to use 'all options' to try and force a vote on the massive package​


Speaker Mike Johnson said he will not be putting the Senate's national security aid bill on the House floor, hours after the Senate spent all night pushing the bill through its chamber.

The $95 billion aid package that passed Tuesday morning includes funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

Without Johnson's approval, there is now talk of forcing the deal to the floor by the arcane discharge petition. That would require 218 members to sign on to a demand to force legislation to the floor.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Johnson says he will NOT put $95B Ukraine and Israel bill on floor

Johnson said he will not be putting the Senate 's national security aid bill on the House floor, hours after the Senate spent all night pushing the bill through its chamber.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top