Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Bevo 13938]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Johnson doesn't need to form a consensus in his own party. He just needs to bring it to a vote. 95% of the democrats will support the bill, and anywhere form 20-40% of republicans will vote for the bill, and it will pass easily and things can move forward. That's how politics CAN work. It's how it used to work. Everything else you said is just complete and utter bullshit obfuscation. But by refusing to bring it to a vote, a small minority is able to completely obstruc the entire process and fuck over Ukraine entirely. 

Maybe or maybe there is more involved.

House Speaker Mike Johnson is negotiating with White House to advance Ukraine aid

House Speaker Mike Johnson is negotiating with the White House as he prepares for the treacherous task of advancing wartime funding for Ukraine and Israel through the House
BySTEPHEN GROVES Associated Press
April 11, 2024, 7:53 PM

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Mike Johnson is negotiating with the White House as he prepares for the treacherous task of advancing wartime funding for Ukraine and Israel through the House, a top House Republican said Thursday.

House Republican Leader Steve Scalise told reporters that Johnson had been talking with White House officials about a package that would deviate from the Senate’s $95 billion foreign security package and include several Republican demands. It comes after Johnson has delayed for months on advancing aid that would provide desperately needed ammunition and weaponry for Kyiv, trying to find the right time to advance a package that will be a painful political lift.

“There’s been no agreement reached,” Scalise said. “Obviously there would have to an agreement reached not just with the White House, but with our own members.”

Johnson, R-La., is being stretched between a Republican conference deeply divided in its support for Ukraine, as well as two presidential contenders at odds over the U.S.’s posture towards the rest of the world. President Joe Biden has repeatedly chastised Republicans for not helping Ukraine, saying they are doing the bidding of Russian President Vladimir Putin and hurting U.S. security. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican candidate, has said he would negotiate an end to the conflict as he tries to push the U.S. to a more isolationist stance.

The Republican speaker is set to travel to the former president’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida on Friday to meet with Trump and has been consulting him in recent weeks on the Ukraine funding to gain his support — or at least prevent him from openly opposing the package.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican who often works closely with House lawmakers, said this week he and Trump have spoken with Johnson “in depth” about how to advance Ukraine aid. It is not clear whether Trump would lend any political support, but Mullin said he was hoping to get the former president behind the package, especially now that Johnson’s job is at stake.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, has threatened to try to oust Johnson as speaker and warned that advancing funding for Ukraine would help build her case that GOP lawmakers should select a new speaker.

Meanwhile, Johnson has been in conversations with the White House about legislation that would structure some of the funding for Kyiv as loans, pave the way for the U.S. to tap frozen Russian central bank assets and include other policy changes.

Johnson has also been pushing for the Biden administration to lift a pause on approvals for Liquefied Natural Gas exports. At times, he has also demanded policy changes at the U.S. border with Mexico.

“This becomes a more dangerous world with Russia in Kyiv,” said Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican who supports aiding Ukraine. “So we’re just got to find a the smart way to get a bill passed that we can get out and back to the Senate.”

Still, Johnson is facing a practically open rebellion from a group of hardline House conservatives who are dissatisfied with the way he has led the House. With a narrow and divided majority, Johnson has been forced to work with Democrats to advance practically any major legislation.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Thursday that the “only path forward” for the House was a vote on the Senate’s national security package. He also suggested that Democrats would help Johnson hold onto the speaker’s gavel if he did so.

While Democrats have pressured Johnson to put the Senate package to a vote, they also may be divided on a vote as a growing number oppose sending Israel offensive weaponry while it engages in a campaign in Gaza that has killed thousands of civilians.

The Biden administration, which would administer any military funding, has issued stern warnings to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that future U.S. support depends on the swift implementation of new steps to protect civilians and aid workers.

“If we want to prevent handing Putin a victory in Europe, the House should do the right thing for democracy and pass the Senate’s aid package now,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday in a floor speech.

 

[SydneyCarton 49537]

13 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Because it was a political post and it is both sides. And of course Johnson is unable to form consensus in his party regarding Ukraine. And now it is an election year. More interesting to me would be the pros and cons of Republican support of Ukraine and the pros and cons of Democrats taking the limits off its support of Ukraine. To me it seems like an easy decision if we are only looking at what is best for the US. Maybe, there is more to it though - like perhaps Democrats are worried about the fall out of a Russian civil war or high gas prices in an election year and the Republicans are worried about talking points in an election year or wasted money without a clear path of what winning would look like. I'm not convinced either party really wants Ukraine victory and would rather see a weakened Russia rather than a destroyed Russia. Maybe, I'm wrong though - a full discussion would be interesting. For the record, I'm very much for a Ukraine victory even if it means a Russian civil war. And I don't worry about Russian nuclear threats. Those are empty. So I am for unfettered support.

Also, as someone who is all for unfettered support for Ukraine, I find it odd that your initial response to aid being upheld in favor of a bunch of floor votes of Liberty In Dishwaser Choice bills as opposed to voting on funding for Ukraine was to hop on here and shrug your shoulders and point fingers at the senate, who has already approved a package for Ukraine months ago, and to shrug and say "this is what our system does." I'd have assumed it just would have made you angry, as it did me.  

[SydneyCarton 49537]

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

Maybe or maybe there is more involved. - Isn't there always? So what.

House Speaker Mike Johnson is negotiating with White House to advance Ukraine aid

House Speaker Mike Johnson is negotiating with the White House as he prepares for the treacherous task of advancing wartime funding for Ukraine and Israel through the House
BySTEPHEN GROVES Associated Press
April 11, 2024, 7:53 PM

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Mike Johnson is negotiating with the White House as he prepares for the treacherous task of advancing wartime funding for Ukraine and Israel through the House, a top House Republican said Thursday.

House Republican Leader Steve Scalise told reporters that Johnson had been talking with White House officials about a package that would deviate from the Senate’s $95 billion foreign security package and include several Republican demands. It comes after Johnson has delayed for months on advancing aid that would provide desperately needed ammunition and weaponry for Kyiv, trying to find the right time to advance a package that will be a painful political lift. It is only painful he would likely be recalled. The bill would likely pass easily. 

“There’s been no agreement reached,” Scalise said. “Obviously there would have to an agreement reached not just with the White House, but with our own members.”

Johnson, R-La., is being stretched between a Republican conference deeply divided in its support for Ukraine, as well as two presidential contenders at odds over the U.S.’s posture towards the rest of the world. President Joe Biden has repeatedly chastised Republicans for not helping Ukraine, saying they are doing the bidding of Russian President Vladimir Putin and hurting U.S. security. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican candidate, has said he would negotiate an end to the conflict as he tries to push the U.S. to a more isolationist stance.

The Republican speaker is set to travel to the former president’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida on Friday to meet with Trump and has been consulting him in recent weeks on the Ukraine funding to gain his support — or at least prevent him from openly opposing the package. This seems problematic. Doing the bidding of someone who isn't even an elected official over bringing an aid package to bear.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican who often works closely with House lawmakers, said this week he and Trump have spoken with Johnson “in depth” about how to advance Ukraine aid. It is not clear whether Trump would lend any political support, but Mullin said he was hoping to get the former president behind the package, especially now that Johnson’s job is at stake.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, has threatened to try to oust Johnson as speaker and warned that advancing funding for Ukraine would help build her case that GOP lawmakers should select a new speaker.

Meanwhile, Johnson has been in conversations with the White House about legislation that would structure some of the funding for Kyiv as loans, pave the way for the U.S. to tap frozen Russian central bank assets and include other policy changes.

Johnson has also been pushing for the Biden administration to lift a pause on approvals for Liquefied Natural Gas exports. At times, he has also demanded policy changes at the U.S. border with Mexico.

“This becomes a more dangerous world with Russia in Kyiv,” said Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican who supports aiding Ukraine. “So we’re just got to find a the smart way to get a bill passed that we can get out and back to the Senate.”

Still, Johnson is facing a practically open rebellion from a group of hardline House conservatives who are dissatisfied with the way he has led the House. With a narrow and divided majority, Johnson has been forced to work with Democrats to advance practically any major legislation.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Thursday that the “only path forward” for the House was a vote on the Senate’s national security package. He also suggested that Democrats would help Johnson hold onto the speaker’s gavel if he did so.

While Democrats have pressured Johnson to put the Senate package to a vote, they also may be divided on a vote as a growing number oppose sending Israel offensive weaponry while it engages in a campaign in Gaza that has killed thousands of civilians.

The Biden administration, which would administer any military funding, has issued stern warnings to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that future U.S. support depends on the swift implementation of new steps to protect civilians and aid workers.

“If we want to prevent handing Putin a victory in Europe, the House should do the right thing for democracy and pass the Senate’s aid package now,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday in a floor speech.

 

I'm just going to highlight some things in your quote above.

Bottom line, is that Johnson has been delaying for MONTHS, and is just now talking to the White House. And The Democrats have given him away forward to maintain the gavel, and he's still working hard to not make any decision whatsoever. 

[bolverk 30388]

The former president has the final say in whether the bill will be brought to the floor. Apparently, the Speaker will meet with him sometime today, so we'll see if they can clear the schedule for a vote next week. However, I'm not optimistic since this Congress hasn't approved any assistance since December 2022.

All of our allies are looking to us and begging for American leadership. Only yesterday, Japan's prime minister gave a speech to Congress asking for increased aid for Ukraine and saying the country would collapse without our support. I guess we'll see soon if the Western alliance of free nations still matters to some. 

[Captainant 28613]

12 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Maybe or maybe there is more involved.

House Speaker Mike Johnson is negotiating with White House to advance Ukraine aid

House Speaker Mike Johnson is negotiating with the White House as he prepares for the treacherous task of advancing wartime funding for Ukraine and Israel through the House
BySTEPHEN GROVES Associated Press
April 11, 2024, 7:53 PM

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Mike Johnson is negotiating with the White House as he prepares for the treacherous task of advancing wartime funding for Ukraine and Israel through the House, a top House Republican said Thursday.

House Republican Leader Steve Scalise told reporters that Johnson had been talking with White House officials about a package that would deviate from the Senate’s $95 billion foreign security package and include several Republican demands. It comes after Johnson has delayed for months on advancing aid that would provide desperately needed ammunition and weaponry for Kyiv, trying to find the right time to advance a package that will be a painful political lift.

“There’s been no agreement reached,” Scalise said. “Obviously there would have to an agreement reached not just with the White House, but with our own members.”

Johnson, R-La., is being stretched between a Republican conference deeply divided in its support for Ukraine, as well as two presidential contenders at odds over the U.S.’s posture towards the rest of the world. President Joe Biden has repeatedly chastised Republicans for not helping Ukraine, saying they are doing the bidding of Russian President Vladimir Putin and hurting U.S. security. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican candidate, has said he would negotiate an end to the conflict as he tries to push the U.S. to a more isolationist stance.

The Republican speaker is set to travel to the former president’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida on Friday to meet with Trump and has been consulting him in recent weeks on the Ukraine funding to gain his support — or at least prevent him from openly opposing the package.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican who often works closely with House lawmakers, said this week he and Trump have spoken with Johnson “in depth” about how to advance Ukraine aid. It is not clear whether Trump would lend any political support, but Mullin said he was hoping to get the former president behind the package, especially now that Johnson’s job is at stake.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, has threatened to try to oust Johnson as speaker and warned that advancing funding for Ukraine would help build her case that GOP lawmakers should select a new speaker.

Meanwhile, Johnson has been in conversations with the White House about legislation that would structure some of the funding for Kyiv as loans, pave the way for the U.S. to tap frozen Russian central bank assets and include other policy changes.

Johnson has also been pushing for the Biden administration to lift a pause on approvals for Liquefied Natural Gas exports. At times, he has also demanded policy changes at the U.S. border with Mexico.

“This becomes a more dangerous world with Russia in Kyiv,” said Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican who supports aiding Ukraine. “So we’re just got to find a the smart way to get a bill passed that we can get out and back to the Senate.”

Still, Johnson is facing a practically open rebellion from a group of hardline House conservatives who are dissatisfied with the way he has led the House. With a narrow and divided majority, Johnson has been forced to work with Democrats to advance practically any major legislation.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Thursday that the “only path forward” for the House was a vote on the Senate’s national security package. He also suggested that Democrats would help Johnson hold onto the speaker’s gavel if he did so.

While Democrats have pressured Johnson to put the Senate package to a vote, they also may be divided on a vote as a growing number oppose sending Israel offensive weaponry while it engages in a campaign in Gaza that has killed thousands of civilians.

The Biden administration, which would administer any military funding, has issued stern warnings to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that future U.S. support depends on the swift implementation of new steps to protect civilians and aid workers.

“If we want to prevent handing Putin a victory in Europe, the House should do the right thing for democracy and pass the Senate’s aid package now,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday in a floor speech.

 

You are doing the fascist's work for them by legitimizing trump's continued interference with Ukraine receiving more military aid to defend themselves from trump's largest donor. He's going to Mar a Lago before working with the SITTING FUCKING PRESIDENT for fucks sake.

Edited April 12 by Captainant

[SydneyCarton 49537]

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

The former president has the final say in whether the bill will be brought to the floor. Apparently, the Speaker will meet with him sometime today, so we'll see if they can clear the schedule for a vote next week. However, I'm not optimistic since this Congress hasn't approved any assistance since December 2022.

All of our allies are looking to us and begging for American leadership. Only yesterday, Japan's prime minister gave a speech to Congress asking for increased aid for Ukraine and saying the country would collapse without our support. I guess we'll see soon if the Western alliance of free nations still matters to some. 

It matters to a vast majority of people. Here and abroad. Just not the ones who have the power to bring it to a vote. 

[Bevo 13938]

31 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Also, as someone who is all for unfettered support for Ukraine, I find it odd that your initial response to aid being upheld in favor of a bunch of floor votes of Liberty In Dishwaser Choice bills as opposed to voting on funding for Ukraine was to hop on here and shrug your shoulders and point fingers at the senate, who has already approved a package for Ukraine months ago, and to shrug and say "this is what our system does." I'd have assumed it just would have made you angry, as it did me.  

Because I have splitting headache and I get annoyed at all the political posts on the non-politics board.  Stick to real news on Ukraine-Russian relations - We all know what is going on in politics in the US. Fuck, it has been going on over my entire lifespan. It isn't that hard to understand as long as you don't dig past the surface.

[Brisketexan 107052]

Because I have splitting headache and I get annoyed at all the political posts on the non-politics board.  Stick to real news on Ukraine-Russian relations - We all know what is going on in politics in the US. Fuck, it has been going on over my entire lifespan. It isn't that hard to understand as long as you don't dig past the surface.

What HASN’T been going on your entire life is one of our two main parties becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Russia. And the party that did so used to be stridently ANTI-Russia. That’s been the most shocking shift in American politics since the Civil Rights era. It is having a global impact, and is causing deaths in Ukraine right now.

[SydneyCarton 49537]

17 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Because I have splitting headache and I get annoyed at all the political posts on the non-politics board.  Stick to real news on Ukraine-Russian relations - We all know what is going on in politics in the US. Fuck, it has been going on over my entire lifespan. It isn't that hard to understand as long as you don't dig past the surface.

I'm sorry sir, I offered a tweet without comment that the Speaker of the US House of representaives was not going to bring a vote on aid in Ukraine in the floor next week, in favor of some other truly pressing topics, like making sure appliances aren't woke. I did this in the thread about the war in Ukraine, where Ukraine has been starved for ammunition and other supplies for months, and has been begging the US for aid.  And I will repeat, I even offered that inital tweet without any kind of comment. 

You immedaitely responding by saying "But look at what the senate is doing next week, CONFIRMING JUDGES." You're literally the first one to start talking about fucking politics. If you don't believe me, go back and look at the exchange yourself. 

And sadly, not everyone seems to truly understand what is going on with US politics at all. Most people don't pay attention to anything past the 4 words on a chryon somethwere. And suggesting people "Not dig past the surface of things" seems like odd fucking advice in general. 

Edited April 12 by SydneyCarton

[YGIFS 19458]

21 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Because I have splitting headache and I get annoyed at all the political posts on the non-politics board.  Stick to real news on Ukraine-Russian relations - We all know what is going on in politics in the US. Fuck, it has been going on over my entire lifespan. It isn't that hard to understand as long as you don't dig past the surface.

^

I agree.  But would have to add that in a geopolitical theater of war which could have massive economic, political, and humanity implications to a good size chunk of Europe---our national leadership's stance on it may have to be fleshed out.  This is arguably the most informed and intelligent thread this site has ever known---in addition to probably "Chicks over 40 that still have it."  But we have to be realistic.  We are at an inflection point.  Ukraine is getting bogged down again and Russia is feeding the beast again.  We will be out of decommed/surplus weapons platforms to give to our NATO allies to pass on to Ukraine by end of of calendar year.  We can still train them and provide intel/satcomms/SIGINT after that, but in the end---they gotta buy food, fuel, fresh ammo, fresh artillery, and medical provisions---never mind morale.  We all have no issue with the posts about political posturing of countries like Hungary and now Austria during this recent advancement by Russia.  When we force posture, that's one thing.  When we finance posture, the whole of Europe (not just NATO) takes big notice.  Nobody is suggesting to the House that we send troops.  Not even pilots.  But our hardware can only continue to go out the door for so long.  Software and humanitarian aide through third parties can continue in perpetuity.  But it's also a situation of demonstrable flexing to Europe (both NATO and non-NATO) to keep up their end, knowing they have an ally in the United States of America. 

There is a better than 0% chance this is the last conventional war waged in Europe for the rest of our existence.  Otherwise, more bad people get ideas.    

Edited April 12 by YGIFS

[bolverk 30388]

31 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

^

I agree.  But would have to add that in a geopolitical theater of war which could have massive economic, political, and humanity implications to a good size chunk of Europe---our national leadership's stance on it may have to be fleshed out.  This is arguably the most informed and intelligent thread this site has ever known---in addition to probably "Chicks over 40 that still have it."  But we have to be realistic.  We are at an inflection point.  Ukraine is getting bogged down again and Russia is feeding the beast again.  We will be out of decommed/surplus weapons platforms to give to our NATO allies to pass on to Ukraine by end of of calendar year.  We can still train them and provide intel/satcomms/SIGINT after that, but in the end---they gotta buy food, fuel, fresh ammo, fresh artillery, and medical provisions---never mind morale.  We all have no issue with the posts about political posturing of countries like Hungary and now Austria during this recent advancement by Russia.  When we force posture, that's one thing.  When we finance posture, the whole of Europe (not just NATO) takes big notice.  Nobody is suggesting to the House that we send troops.  Not even pilots.  But our hardware can only continue to go out the door for so long.  Software and humanitarian aide through third parties can continue in perpetuity.  But it's also a situation of demonstrable flexing to Europe (both NATO and non-NATO) to keep up their end, knowing they have an ally in the United States of America. 

There is a better than 0% chance this is the last conventional war waged in Europe for the rest of our existence.  Otherwise, more bad people get ideas.    

The short of it is that this should NOT be a political issue, but it is being made into one. Worse than that -- it's become partisan.

[kevwun 16450]

 Putin owns a few key US politicians who are doing his bidding and fucking this up for Ukraine.  You can make excuses for that if you want, but it's the real cause of the holdup.

Edited April 12 by kevwun

[Thetexashammer 1062]

I disagree with the Republican stance, but the argument that "Ukraine can't win and extending the war is resulting in needless slaughter" is not without merit. 

However, some of you people have been listening the QAnon a little too much. Your conspiracy theories and both insane and posted to the wrong forum. 

[B00M 6738]

3 hours ago, Bevo said:

With a narrow and divided majority, Johnson has been forced to work with Democrats to advance practically any major legislation.

[B00M 6738]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

I disagree with the Republican stance, but the argument that "Ukraine can't win and extending the war is resulting in needless slaughter" is not without merit. 

It is absolutely without merit. If Ukraine falls, the men, women, and children of all of Ukraine will suffer immensely for the humiliation they’ve put Putin through. The massacres, rape, and kidnapping will only possibly be dwarfed by the number of men that are forcibly conscripted and forced to fight nato on behalf of Russia. The “needless slaughter” will get WORSE and much more likely to directly involve Americans. 

[Captainant 28613]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

but the argument that "Britain can't win and extending the war is resulting in needless slaughter" is not without merit. 

Fixed for historical comparison. This is some appeasement shit my dude. You think just giving up and letting Putin take Ukraine will satisfy his dictatorial hunger for power? 

[Scheiss Meister 8478]

The bottom line is still that we can send ammo, equipment, and money to Ukraine to defeat Russia now, or send ammo, equipment, money, and our children to Europe in the next few years to defeat Russia then.  Simple choice.  As was pointed out at the beginning of this invasion: if you wonder what you would have done and supported in the late thirties as Hitler was cranking things up in Europe, it is what you are doing and supporting now.

[Chad Fuck 18170]

The bottom line is still that we can send ammo, equipment, and money to Ukraine to defeat Russia now, or send ammo, equipment, money, and our children to Europe in the next few years to defeat Russia then.  Simple choice.  As was pointed out at the beginning of this invasion: if you wonder what you would have done and supported in the late thirties as Hitler was cranking things up in Europe, it is what you are doing and supporting now.

Just give him the Sudetenland! There will be peace in our time!

[Thetexashammer 1062]

55 minutes ago, B00M said:

It is absolutely without merit. If Ukraine falls, the men, women, and children of all of Ukraine will suffer immensely for the humiliation they’ve put Putin through. The massacres, rape, and kidnapping will only possibly be dwarfed by the number of men that are forcibly conscripted and forced to fight nato on behalf of Russia. The “needless slaughter” will get WORSE and much more likely to directly involve Americans. 

I already said I disagree with the position. I merely said it has merit. It has been clear from the beginning the Putin is evil, I need not expound on that.

Please show me, in simple steps, how Ukraine can win the war. They are currently engaged in a war of attrition with a much larger, much more populous country. Attrition is a battle of resources, and Ukraine is at or near its limit, with its chief constraint being fighting men. Currently, the AVERAGE ago of a front line fighter is 43 years old. They've lost almost half their population since the war started. They have been losing territory for the last 18 months.

Please show me your plan for Ukraine to defeat the much larger Russian war machine. I'd love to see it. And then please share it with the Pentagon, they seem to lack your highly attuned tactical military expertise.

[Brisketexan 107052]

2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

However, some of you people have been listening the QAnon a little too much. Your conspiracy theories and both insane and posted to the wrong forum. 

WTF?  The effective opposition to aid to Ukraine is coming from ONE faction of ONE party being driven almost entirely by ONE leader of said party.  Fucking seriously, it's not "Qanon conspiracy theory" shit when they literally say out loud what they are doing and why.  What the fuck are you even talking about?

[956 Worldwide 35602]

It is getting increasingly hard to untangle the battlefield and Ukraine’s prospects from politics because (of choice) American politicians have chosen to make Russia’s victory and Ukraine’s defeat a political aim. I’ll leave it at that but the single biggest factor for whether Ukraine can hold serve is more approval to send weapons. 
 

In the meantime China has picked sides and so we now sort of are in a proxy war with the PRC. 
 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-intelligence-shows-china-is-surging-equipment-sales-to-russia-to-help-war-effort-in-ukraine-ap-says

Spoiler

WASHINGTON (AP) — China has surged sales to Russia of machine tools, microelectronics and other technology that Moscow in turn is using to produce missiles, tanks, aircraft and other weaponry for use in its war against Ukraine, according to a U.S. assessment.

Two senior Biden administration officials, who discussed the sensitive findings Friday on the condition of anonymity, said that in 2023 about 90 percent of Russia’s microelectronics came from China, which Russia has used to make missiles, tanks and aircraft. Nearly 70 percent of Russia’s approximately $900 million in machine tool imports in the last quarter of 2023 came from China.

Chinese and Russian entities have also been working to jointly produce unmanned aerial vehicles inside Russia, and Chinese companies are likely providing Russia with nitrocellulose needed to make propellants weapons, the officials said. China-based companies Wuhan Global Sensor Technology Co., Wuhan Tongsheng Technology Co. Ltd. and Hikvision are providing optical components for use in Russian tanks and armored vehicles.

READ MORE: Ukraine will be outgunned by Russia 10 to 1 in weeks without U.S. help, top Europe general says

The officials said Russia has received military optics for use in tanks and armored vehicles manufactured by Chinese firms iRay Technology and North China Research Institute of Electro-Optics, and China has been providing Russia with UAV engines and turbojet engines for cruise missiles.

Russia’s semiconductor imports from China jumped from $200 million in 2021 to over $500 million in 2022, according to Russian customs data analyzed by the Free Russia Foundation, a group that advocates for civil society development.

Beijing is also working with Russia to improve its satellite and other space-based capabilities for use in Ukraine, a development the officials say could in the longer term increase the threat Russia poses across Europe. The officials, citing downgraded intelligence findings, said the U.S. has also determined that China is providing imagery to Russia for its war on Ukraine.

The officials discussed the findings as Secretary of State Antony Blinken is expected to travel to China this month for talks. President Joe Biden has previously raised his concerns directly with Chinese President Xi Jinping about Beijing indirectly supporting Russia’s war effort.

While China has not provided direct lethal military support for Russia, it has backed it diplomatically in blaming the West for provoking Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch the war and refrained from calling it an invasion in deference to the Kremlin.

China has also said it isn’t providing Russia with arms or military assistance, although it has maintained robust economic connections with Moscow, alongside India and other countries, amid sanctions from Washington and its allies.

WATCH: Leigh Ann Caldwell and Stephen Fowler on Ukraine aid, House leadership and the 2024 race

Xi met in Beijing on Tuesday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who heaped praise on Xi’s leadership.

Russia’s growing economic and diplomatic isolation has made it increasingly reliant on China, its former rival for leadership of the Communist bloc during the Cold War.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who returned to Washington this week from a visit to Beijing, said she warned Chinese officials that the Biden administration was prepared to sanction Chinese banks, companies and Beijing’s leadership, if they assist Russia’s armed forces with its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

The Democratic president issued an executive order in December giving Yellen the authority to sanction financial institutions that aided Russia’s military-industrial complex.

“We continue to be concerned about the role that any firms, including those in the PRC, are playing in Russia’s military procurement,” Yellen told reporters, using the initials for the People’s Republic of China. “I stressed that companies, including those in the PRC, must not provide material support for Russia’s war and that they will face significant consequences if they do. And I reinforced that any banks that facilitate significant transactions that channel military or dual-use goods to Russia’s defense industrial base expose themselves to the risk of U.S. sanctions.”

The U.S. has frequently downgraded and unveiled intelligence findings about Russia’s plans and operations over the course of the more than 2-year-old war with Ukraine.

WATCH: Pentagon holds news briefing as general warns Ukraine will soon be outgunned by Russia

Such efforts have been focused on highlighting plans for Russian misinformation operations or to throw attention on Moscow’s difficulties in prosecuting its war against Ukraine as well as its coordination with Iran and North Korea to supply it with badly needed weaponry. Blinken last year spotlighted intelligence that showed China was considering providing arms and ammunition to Russia.

The White House believes that the public airing of the intelligence findings has led China, at least for now, to hold off on directly arming Russia. China’s economy has also been slow to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. Chinese officials could be sensitive to reaction from European capitals, which have maintained closer ties to Beijing even as the U.S.-China relationship has become more complicated.

Meanwhile, China on Thursday announced rare sanctions against two U.S. defense companies over what it called their support for arms sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island democracy Beijing claims as its own territory to be recovered by force if necessary.

The announcement freezes the assets of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems held within China. It also bars the companies’ management from entering the country.

Filings show General Dynamics operates a half-dozen Gulfstream and jet aviation services operations in China, which remains heavily reliant on foreign aerospace technology even as it attempts to build its own presence in the field.

The company also helps make the Abrams tank being purchased by Taiwan to replace outdated armor intended to deter or resist an invasion from China.

General Atomics produces the Predator and Reaper drones used by the U.S. military.

 

[atomheartbevo 90692]

4 hours ago, bolverk said:

The short of it is that this should NOT be a political issue,

Everybody should be happy as hell at the very least, that we are getting rid of surplus equipment that we were paying to store and were never going to use again.  Hell, shit that was headed towards long-term storage when I was in the Army back in the 90s should be a complete non-issue.  We are just paying to store it for possible sales or donations to other countries and that’s about it.

[atomheartbevo 90692]

2 hours ago, B00M said:

It is absolutely without merit. If Ukraine falls, the men, women, and children of all of Ukraine will suffer immensely for the humiliation they’ve put Putin through. The massacres, rape, and kidnapping will only possibly be dwarfed by the number of men that are forcibly conscripted and forced to fight nato on behalf of Russia. The “needless slaughter” will get WORSE and much more likely to directly involve Americans. 

Yep.  If Ukraine loses, Putin will believe the West is weak and he will take over Georgia, Moldova, and Belarus, and then move on the Balkins, because if we stop help with Ukraine, we won’t help with Moldova or Georgia.  

[atomheartbevo 90692]

4 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

However, some of you people have been listening the QAnon a little too much. 

Tell us you’ve never talked to a Qanon or read what they are saying, without telling us.

Qanons literally believe that Putin is the only leader defending Christianity in Europe, that the Soviet Union should not have been split apart and that the Baltics, Ukraine, etc. had no right to vote to leave, that Zelenskyy is literally a modern version of a WWII Nazi, that the US and Ukraine had bioweapon labs along the Russian border (but Russia couldn’t find them for some reason), that NATO troops are fighting in Ukraine, that Russia is actually fighting for freedom, that the Warsaw Pact should not have been broken up (or alternatively that it still exists and that Russia is just going what they are allowed to do) etc.

Nobody in this thread outside of GRUhorn/Crispy and their alts believes that shit.

[B00M 6738]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

I already said I disagree with the position. I merely said it has merit. It has been clear from the beginning the Putin is evil, I need not expound on that.

Please show me, in simple steps, how Ukraine can win the war. They are currently engaged in a war of attrition with a much larger, much more populous country. Attrition is a battle of resources, and Ukraine is at or near its limit, with its chief constraint being fighting men. Currently, the AVERAGE ago of a front line fighter is 43 years old. They've lost almost half their population since the war started. They have been losing territory for the last 18 months.

Please show me your plan for Ukraine to defeat the much larger Russian war machine. I'd love to see it. And then please share it with the Pentagon, they seem to lack your highly attuned tactical military expertise.

The Pentagon has said that if congress doesn’t get their shit together, Ukraine is about to be outgunned. That’s factually correct and says nothing about Ukraine’s longer term prospects for victory. As is, Russia will have a ~1 month window where they have a large advantage in terms of men, artillery, and Ukraine will be starved of air defenses. Ukraine is about to needlessly suffer and undoubtedly lose territory and infrastructure because of the US House. It’s hard for me to think of a recent example of US Politicians more directly having blood on their hands. 

But since you apparently haven’t been paying attention, I’ll spell out how Ukraine wins:

1 - Ukraine immediately receives a stockpile of Patriot missiles and ~7+ patriot systems from the ~100 spread across the EU. Russia has only been able to take out so much Ukrainian power production recently due to a shortage of Patriot missiles. Aside from reducing civilian suffering, this greatly diminishes Russia’s ability to use glide bombs on Ukrainian fortifications at the front because when patriots get near the front, Russia starts losing a jet a day on those glide bomb runs. Russia has only been able to achieve pockets of air superiority recently due to the patriot shortage. 

2 - Ukraine receives artillery, mortars, etc… they’ve proven they don’t need to match Russia’s 10k shells per day to prevent Russian advance because they’re more efficient. But they’ll start receiving the 1-2+ million shells from the Czech led initiative in June. If the US could get them something like 6k shells per day immediately, they’d be able to hold the lines until June.

3 - Ukraine continues playing defense, smoking Russians at a 4:1 to 10+:1 clip … Ukraine receives F16s and enough long range weapons to permanently push Russian support hubs and 100+ miles from the front. Yes, Ukraine has had to give up some land since Avdiivka fell, but they’ve retreated to naturally advantageous positions. They now have water barriers and the high ground and Russian advances have largely stopped again. 

4 - Ukraine takes out that bridge in the east and the rail lines over the land bridge to Crimea and chokes out the peninsula. 

5 - Ukraine continues relentlessly targeting Russian oil and gas, Russian manufacturing, power plants, etc. Starve the machine of oil. This is the most obvious way to break Russia. 

6 - Sustain the lines and keep Ukraine mostly clean and productive for 2+ more years. Russia is losing about 1k men per day. Their infrastructure is failing. They’re hemorrhaging billions of dollars a day in lost o&g revenue. Their stockpiles are demonstrably running low and they’re about to be completely dependent on their own production rates (which appear very insufficient) and supplies from their shit stain allies. Inflation is already very high in Russia and will get much worse due to shortages. Russia will break. Go fuck yourself

 

 

 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

42 minutes ago, B00M said:

The Pentagon has said that if congress doesn’t get their shit together, Ukraine is about to be outgunned. That’s factually correct and says nothing about Ukraine’s longer term prospects for victory. As is, Russia will have a ~1 month window where they have a large advantage in terms of men, artillery, and Ukraine will be starved of air defenses. Ukraine is about to needlessly suffer and undoubtedly lose territory and infrastructure because of the US House. It’s hard for me to think of a recent example of US Politicians more directly having blood on their hands. 

But since you apparently haven’t been paying attention, I’ll spell out how Ukraine wins:

1 - Ukraine immediately receives a stockpile of Patriot missiles and ~7+ patriot systems from the ~100 spread across the EU. Russia has only been able to take out so much Ukrainian power production recently due to a shortage of Patriot missiles. Aside from reducing civilian suffering, this greatly diminishes Russia’s ability to use glide bombs on Ukrainian fortifications at the front because when patriots get near the front, Russia starts losing a jet a day on those glide bomb runs. Russia has only been able to achieve pockets of air superiority recently due to the patriot shortage. 

2 - Ukraine receives artillery, mortars, etc… they’ve proven they don’t need to match Russia’s 10k shells per day to prevent Russian advance because they’re more efficient. But they’ll start receiving the 1-2+ million shells from the Czech led initiative in June. If the US could get them something like 6k shells per day immediately, they’d be able to hold the lines until June.

3 - Ukraine continues playing defense, smoking Russians at a 4:1 to 10+:1 clip … Ukraine receives F16s and enough long range weapons to permanently push Russian support hubs and 100+ miles from the front. Yes, Ukraine has had to give up some land since Avdiivka fell, but they’ve retreated to naturally advantageous positions. They now have water barriers and the high ground and Russian advances have largely stopped again. 

4 - Ukraine takes out that bridge in the east and the rail lines over the land bridge to Crimea and chokes out the peninsula. 

5 - Ukraine continues relentlessly targeting Russian oil and gas, Russian manufacturing, power plants, etc. Starve the machine of oil. This is the most obvious way to break Russia. 

6 - Sustain the lines and keep Ukraine mostly clean and productive for 2+ more years. Russia is losing about 1k men per day. Their infrastructure is failing. They’re hemorrhaging billions of dollars a day in lost o&g revenue. Their stockpiles are demonstrably running low and they’re about to be completely dependent on their own production rates (which appear very insufficient) and supplies from their shit stain allies. Inflation is already very high in Russia and will get much worse due to shortages. Russia will break. Go fuck yourself

 

 

 

Almost two years ago, the guy I was sitting next to got tasked to go to DC to participate in the planning for Ukraine's summer offensive. That was our plan they executed last summer, and it didn't work.

We provided them all a metric shitton of equipment, tanks, 155mm artillery, missiles, more than enough to engage in what we call, by doctrine, combined arms operations. We sent their people to our bases, where they were given training on our equipment. Lastly, we developed the war plan that they were expected to implement. We supplied all of their logistical needs. We provided everything you could need to win a battle. 

The result of their efforts was the Ukraine got beat. They were unable to retake any territory. We can look back in retrospect and talk about air supremacy and drones and whatnot, but Ukraine has nothing to show for everything that we gave them. They are not, by any measurable metric, winning the war. In the present scenario, there is exactly zero reason to believe they can win. Attrition is not in their favor.

Most of what you posted above is hope, not reality. Improving their defense, Patriot missiles or otherwise, will not win the war, merely prolong it. They need a dramatic increase in the resources available to fight the war, and they need it soon. I asked the question and I will ask it again. Show me the tactical path to victory. How will a depleted, borderline elderly, and outmanned Ukrainian army engage in offensive operations and destroy the Russian army in its territory?  

BREAK BREAK

What I am in favor of is cutting off Russia from SWIFT. I support much stronger sanctions on Russia and Russian companies. I am favor of giving Ukraine much more powerful missiles IOT destroy the Kerch Bridge permanently. We should end the ability of Russians to freely travel outside of their country. I am in favor of an international tribunal similar to Nuremburg at which we can convict as many Russians as possible for their crimes.

What I'd like to see is Poland send its army into Ukraine, as well as the Baltics and France. A bigger key would be sending their support people. Meaning maintenance and logistics. Establish ano fly zone over Ukraine and kill everything that moves. Probably, that would help a little. But alone it would not win the war. More likely, the Polish, Baltics, French, and maybe the US will need to start actively killing Russians, if the standard is to expel the Russians from Ukraine, including Crimea, a goal which I support. Of course we need to send much better weapons to the Ukrainians, not just artillery shells and F-16s. AC-130s maybe?

Under no conditions should Putin be allowed to win this, or to appear to have won, or in any way defeated the West.

Edited April 12 by Thetexashammer

[Schulz2.0 29309]

37 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Almost two years ago, the guy I was sitting next to got tasked to go to DC to participate in the planning for Ukraine's summer offensive. That was our plan they executed last summer, and it didn't work.

We provided them all a metric shitton of equipment, tanks, 155mm artillery, missiles, more than enough to engage in what we call, by doctrine, combined arms operations. We sent their people to our bases, where they were given training on our equipment. Lastly, we developed the war plan that they were expected to implement. We supplied all of their logistical needs. We provided everything you could need to win a battle. 

The result of their efforts was the Ukraine got beat. They were unable to retake any territory. We can look back in retrospect and talk about air supremacy and drones and whatnot, but Ukraine has nothing to show for everything that we gave them. They are not, by any measurable metric, winning the war. In the present scenario, there is exactly zero reason to believe they can win. Attrition is not in their favor.

Most of what you posted above is hope, not reality. Improving their defense, Patriot missiles or otherwise, will not win the war, merely prolong it. They need a dramatic increase in the resources available to fight the war, and they need it soon. I asked the question and I will ask it again. Show me the tactical path to victory. How will a depleted, borderline elderly, and outmanned Ukrainian army engage in offensive operations and destroy the Russian army in its territory?  

The plan was incredibly naive in hindsight. We gave them a lot of equipment, but it wasn't nearly enough. We also fucked around so long that the Russians had plenty of time to prepare extensive layered defenses. We could also get into the parts where we asked Ukraine to execute complex combined arms maneuvers while not actually giving them the equipment to set up the conditions any NATO army would set prior to attempting those maneuvers.

[Sawbonz 28254]

If Poland goes in to Ukraine, World War III happens

[Neonmoon 38130]

The only reasons Ukraine is “losing” is due to lack of weapons. We all know why the supplies have stopped. This isn’t fucking rocket science. 

[Nivek 17430]

Gee a military gets a bunch of new shit and then tests it out in a battle and it doesn't work like magic initially?  Holy fucking shit.  I am sure this has never happened before.   Nope.  I suppose that after the Kasserine Pass battle we should have just packed it up and went back home right, comrade? 

[B00M 6738]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

Almost two years ago, the guy I was sitting next to got tasked to go to DC to participate in the planning for Ukraine's summer offensive. That was our plan they executed last summer, and it didn't work.

We provided them all a metric shitton of equipment, tanks, 155mm artillery, missiles, more than enough to engage in what we call, by doctrine, combined arms operations.

Okay sure, let’s just ignore how wildly successful the 2022 offensive was and focus on 2023. You think they had all they needed for successful combined arms operations with what they had in their Air Force at the time?

No air superiority, not enough patriots to devote several to the front, no way to adequately support their ground forces from above … 

In my mind, the only valid criticism of the 2023 was the predictable direction they chose. They went straight into the strongest teeth of the Russian defense, trying to cut off Crimea. That was at least partly political, trying to maintain US enthusiasm. They wasted a lot of their best men and equipment trying to satisfy assholes like you. If they had guarantees of support they could trust, they wouldn’t have made that risky decision. 

Edited April 13 by B00M

[Parliament 14632]

This thread done got ate up with politics, pissbagging and general stupidity.

[InkaUtexas 27000]

5 minutes ago, Parliament said:

This thread done got ate up with politics, pissbagging and general stupidity.

It has become longhorn twitter.

[B00M 6738]

Be real dude, the west gave an almost negligible number of tanks (far from a metric fuck ton) to Ukraine. The western fighter jets are coming online late enough (this summer!) that a lot of Americans have given up. Expecting Ukraine to fight through THREE separate lines of mines, dragon teeth, and trenches with what they were supplied is fucking insane. How the fuck could you expect that to be successful? 

[B00M 6738]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

If Poland goes in to Ukraine, World War III happens

Does it? This is the one part of @Thetexashammer’s post I’m maybe on board with. Why are we not actively trying to tie Russia’s hands like they and China did to us in Korea? Send in troops and make their locations known. Russia: strike here at your own risk. 

Edited April 13 by B00M

[Captainant 28613]

9 minutes ago, Parliament said:

This thread done got ate up with politics, pissbagging and general stupidity.

Is it politics when President Zelensky is the one saying "we will fall to Russia if US Congress doesn't pass aid"? Or is the politics the disagreement in the thread that the US should not support our democratic ally against a fascistic dictators invasion?

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

The plan was incredibly naive in hindsight. We gave them a lot of equipment, but it wasn't nearly enough. We also fucked around so long that the Russians had plenty of time to prepare extensive layered defenses. We could also get into the parts where we asked Ukraine to execute complex combined arms maneuvers while not actually giving them the equipment to set up the conditions any NATO army would set prior to attempting those maneuvers.

The numbers of battle tanks was too small, surely. But so was the ability to support and fuel those tanks.  It's not just "a tank" it's an entire sustainment system that needs to operate in support of that tank. I saw an assessment that the average life span of a tank engaged in active combat is two weeks. If that is even close to correct, tanks are not the key to winning the battle. I think in today's environment, meaning drones, tanks do not make the critical difference. If they are out in the open, they get killed pretty quick. 

A bigger problem is the minefields. Russia has mined the shit out of every farmers field across the entire length of the battlefield. Out of courtesy to the Ukranians, they left open certain roads. These roads are what Americans call "kill zones". They funnel the enemy into a narrow corridor for easy targeting. I don't think anyone has the demining equipment, or the balls to sit out there and get shelled while engaged in demining operations.

Either way, I don't think a few more tanks or a few more artillery shells will win the war. And I am sure you don't think that either. As best I can tell, there is no summer offensive this year. There is no hope of a breakthrough anytime soon, and some risk of a Russian offensive success this summer. The risk of a complete Ukranian collapse is higher than that of Russia at this point.

There is no Wisdom of Solomon that can win the moment. Escalation is the only choice. Shit or get off the pot.

Edited April 13 by Thetexashammer

[InkaUtexas 27000]

Wars and battles are won by meters, not kilometers. We, the US have a massive support organization. Maintenance, food, everything that goes into it.  Ukraine did not get that early and it takes time to build. I think people think everyone coming out of infantry school or armor school is a bad ass. Nope. Takes time to learn.

Ukraine is holding their own. It is impressive.

[Neonmoon 38130]

The US military with unlimited funding has struggled against lesser opponents because war is hard. Saying Ukrainians can’t win because they didn’t rout the Russians with a slow drip of hand me downs is a take. 

[atomheartbevo 90692]

11 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Wars and battles are won by meters, not kilometers. We, the US have a massive support organization. Maintenance, food, everything that goes into it.  Ukraine did not get that early and it takes time to build. I think people think everyone coming out of infantry school or armor school is a bad ass. Nope. Takes time to learn.

Ukraine is holding their own. It is impressive.

They made Russia pay dearly for Avdiivka, and now the Russians are struggling to move beyond that area (geography and a river are working against them).  The Ukrainians are eating them up with drones.

[B00M 6738]

21 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The numbers of battle tanks was too small, surely. But so was the ability to support and fuel those tanks.  It's not just "a tank" it's an entire sustainment system that needs to operate in support of that tank. I saw an assessment that the average life span of a tank engaged in active combat is two weeks. If that is even close to correct, tanks are not the key to winning the battle. I think in today's environment, meaning drones, tanks do not make the critical difference. If they are out in the open, they get killed pretty quick. 

A bigger problem is the minefields. Russia has mined the shit out of every farmers field across the entire length of the battlefield. Out of courtesy to the Ukranians, they left open certain roads. These roads are what Americans call "kill zones". They funnel the enemy into a narrow corridor for easy targeting. I don't think anyone has the demining equipment, or the balls to sit out there and get shelled while engaged in demining operations.

Either way, I don't think a few more tanks or a few more artillery shells will win the war. And I am sure you don't think that either. As best I can tell, there is no summer offensive this year. There is no hope of a breakthrough anytime soon, and some risk of a Russian offensive success this summer. The risk of a complete Ukranian collapse is higher than that of Russia at this point.

There is no Wisdom of Solomon that can win the moment. Escalation is the only choice. Shit or get off the pot.

A few more tanks or shells? Fuck you. Offensives are utterly pointless right now. They’re wildly inefficient. The only option now is to kill invading Russians as cheaply as possible: make them respect the threat of artillery and use $600 FPVs to kill individuals and a handful of them to get vehicles. Of course that won’t WIN the war. Are you regarded or something? The lines are established as long as supply levels are simply maintained. Stop rug-pulling Ukraine and these lines will stay static while Russia spills blood for meters. Russia has already LOST this war. Ukraine has to destroy Russia’s o&g economy to WIN this war. 
 

[Bevo 13938]

11 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm sorry sir, I offered a tweet without comment that the Speaker of the US House of representaives was not going to bring a vote on aid in Ukraine in the floor next week, in favor of some other truly pressing topics, like making sure appliances aren't woke. I did this in the thread about the war in Ukraine, where Ukraine has been starved for ammunition and other supplies for months, and has been begging the US for aid.  And I will repeat, I even offered that inital tweet without any kind of comment. 

You immedaitely responding by saying "But look at what the senate is doing next week, CONFIRMING JUDGES." You're literally the first one to start talking about fucking politics. If you don't believe me, go back and look at the exchange yourself. 

And sadly, not everyone seems to truly understand what is going on with US politics at all. Most people don't pay attention to anything past the 4 words on a chryon somethwere. And suggesting people "Not dig past the surface of things" seems like odd fucking advice in general. 

Well, the reason I respond to you is that you are reasonable and you fucking know better. Same with Brisket's constant one party comments ... like that makes it non-political.

Let's put it another way. I am fine with dogs at the park. But, don't take your dogs off the leash and wave at people as they pass by. Or at least don't expect everyone to wave back and be okay with it. Not everyone is fine with your dogs off leash even though you think they are well behaved. You know the rules of the board. You broke them. Some people are fine with that and some people aren't.

And yes, the appointment of a single judge in a place nobody even knows is a US territory is no different than reviewing legislation that would prevent people from buying gas cooktops and washers that use enough water to actually decently clean clothes.

Edited April 13 by Bevo

[Sawbonz 28254]

2 hours ago, B00M said:

Does it? This is the one part of @Thetexashammer’s post I’m maybe on board with. Why are we not actively trying to tie Russia’s hands like they and China did to us in Korea? Send in troops and make their locations known. Russia: strike here at your own risk. 

Username checks out 

[Bevo 13938]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

The only reasons Ukraine is “losing” is due to lack of weapons. We all know why the supplies have stopped. This isn’t fucking rocket science. 

This isn't true. They have a lack of manpower as well and have not been able to institute a draft and rotate personnel off the front line. And we all know why the supplies from the US have stopped. And we know why certain supplies from the US were never supplied. But, we don't have a clear idea of what is going on in Europe regarding supply. Turkey could send a shitload of supplies. Germany could do the same. What's going on there and in places such as Austria, Poland, and the Czech Republic? Those posts are interesting.

[Brisketexan 107052]

This isn't true. They have a lack of manpower as well and have not been able to institute a draft and rotate personnel off the front line. And we all know why the supplies from the US have stopped. And we know why certain supplies from the US were never supplied. But, we don't have a clear idea of what is going on in Europe regarding supply. Turkey could send a shitload of supplies. Germany could do the same. What's going on there and in places such as Austria, Poland, and the Czech Republic? Those posts are interesting.

All the “questions” you just asked about what European countries are doing have been answered. Collectively, they have a lower GDP than the US…and have contributed MORE in value than the US has.
You don’t actually have questions. You just keep repeating them because you don’t like the answer.

[Willfully Horn 8293]

13 hours ago, Bevo said:

Because it was a political post and it is both sides. And of course Johnson is unable to form consensus in his party regarding Ukraine. And now it is an election year. More interesting to me would be the pros and cons of Republican support of Ukraine and the pros and cons of Democrats taking the limits off its support of Ukraine. To me it seems like an easy decision if we are only looking at what is best for the US. Maybe, there is more to it though - like perhaps Democrats are worried about the fall out of a Russian civil war or high gas prices in an election year and the Republicans are worried about talking points in an election year or wasted money without a clear path of what winning would look like. I'm not convinced either party really wants Ukraine victory and would rather see a weakened Russia rather than a destroyed Russia. Maybe, I'm wrong though - a full discussion would be interesting. For the record, I'm very much for a Ukraine victory even if it means a Russian civil war. And I don't worry about Russian nuclear threats. Those are empty. So I am for unfettered support.

Dude. Your talents in posting deserve the proper audience.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

 

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Username checks out 

What do this have to do with being an abusive but hilarious trial lawyer?

 

Edited April 13 by Thetexashammer

[F250 29214]

3 hours ago, Parliament said:

This thread done got ate up with politics, pissbagging and general stupidity.

 

[Hook1997 5533]

Lack of artillery shells, missiles and air support, are definitely a huge issue but soldier fatigue and lack of rotation from the front lines is also a huge issue.  (There’s been plenty of articles about that recently) Their best skilled soldiers have been fighting for a long time and dying at a rate higher than Ukraine is reporting, I’d trust our estimates more.  Then you get to the B team and reserves and if you know anything about our reserve soldiers, they aren’t the same as regular soldiers.  Both issues are worrisome.  Also Russia is finally adjusting from their past mistakes slowly.  Ukraine definitely needs way more supplies to hold off the endless wave of meat grinders Russia can send in the next couple years.  Putin’s demise is still the best option for this to end anytime soon.  

[SydneyCarton 49537]

9 hours ago, Bevo said:

Well, the reason I respond to you is that you are reasonable and you fucking know better. Same with Brisket's constant one party comments ... like that makes it non-political.

Let's put it another way. I am fine with dogs at the park. But, don't take your dogs off the leash and wave at people as they pass by. Or at least don't expect everyone to wave back and be okay with it. Not everyone is fine with your dogs off leash even though you think they are well behaved. You know the rules of the board. You broke them. Some people are fine with that and some people aren't.

And yes, the appointment of a single judge in a place nobody even knows is a US territory is no different than reviewing legislation that would prevent people from buying gas cooktops and washers that use enough water to actually decently clean clothes.

You’re full of shit in this instance. I offered up a tweet that the us was fucking around with supporting Ukraine, of which there might be hundreds of others in this thread which people have posted and lamented. YOU inferred what you wanted from that tweet and then started spouting political bullshit and offering defense or explanation of the situation, citing BoThSiDeS nonsense and THEN off we went. You took your dog off the leash, buddy. Own it. 

Edited April 13 by SydneyCarton