Zobel said:

---

The only thing that seems obvious to me is that this has a lot to do with the democrats for you.

---

Yukon answered but, duh, look at what the Democrats are doing and support. How could anyone think they have our best interest in mind over there considering their domestic policies here?

Because I think in many cases geopolitics and foreign policy transcend domestic party activity. That's why by and large the US foreign policy has been consistent regardless of who is in the white house. Speaking from a grand strategy perspective supporting Ukraine to the maximum extent possible is the right move ten times out of ten here. Russia can't take Ukraine, because what comes next is Romania and / or Poland. Their activity and execution on the line of securing geographic strong points has been consistent and deliberate since G W Bush.

NATO must not meet Russia on the battlefield, period.

Zobel said:

---

Because I think in many cases geopolitics and foreign policy transcend domestic party activity. That's why by and large the US foreign policy has been consistent regardless of who is in the white house. Speaking from a grand strategy perspective supporting Ukraine to the maximum extent possible is the right move ten times out of ten here. Russia can't take Ukraine, because what comes next is Romania and / or Poland. Their activity and execution on the line of securing geographic strong points has been consistent and deliberate since G W Bush.

NATO must not meet Russia on the battlefield, period.

---

Again, I'm good with Russia getting their asses kicked here. However, common sense and basic ethics should dictate that we know how we are spending this money but few on either side care anymore. Just kind of blows my mind we are willing to sacrifice that simply because of revenge porn against an adversary that hasn't been relevant to us in decades.

Frankly, I'm not sure why I care anymore. What we spend really no longer matters since we are on the path to destruction already.

Russia would never attack a NATO country in the first place. That was never their intent here. I simply don't understand how some of y'all think that was the plan. The plan was always Ukraine, Kstan, and Moldova according to the former US officials and geopolitical experts.

So you agree it's the right thing to do but you say we're doing it wrong? Show that, then.

You haven't shown any evidence that people don't care how the money is spent or that it is not being spent well. Just a handwave about democrats and "that's how foreign aid works".

Zobel said:

---

So you agree it's the right thing to do but you say we're doing it wrong? Show that, then.

You haven't shown any evidence that people don't care how the money is spent or that it is not being spent well. Just a handwave about democrats and "that's how foreign aid works".

---

Yes, I've said that repeatedly on here. We are doing it wrong because they stripped oversight from the legislation that allocated funding to Ukraine. If you are ok with that then I guess you are ok suspending ethics for issues that appeal to you.

Stripping oversight from legislation is all the evidence I need. It gives the government a blank check to do whatever they want...unseen....in a country on other side of the world that has nothing to do with us other than revenge porn against Russia.

"that's how foreign aid works" - I didn't say that. You are confusing me with another poster.

I said this is how foreign aid works because it is. Do we have a record of where the money went after we gave it to Iran? What about all the money to China? Foreign aid goes to countries like China then state sponsor companies hire politicians family members and pay them big salaries for example.

There is zero real oversight and accountability to our foreign aid packages.

Riddle me this. How does John Mcain spend an entire life being a public servant die with a net worth over 100 million?

I need more info than what you're providing. Are there not standing oversight methods for spending? Do we need additional special ones for this?

Is there graft happening? Probably, almost certainly. There always is, corruption is a constant in war. But it doesn't seem to be a coherent objection to what we're doing. What's your alternative?

You guys act like we just Venmo'ed $10 billon to them. Most of it will be in actual weapons and equipment. Then it will be replaced by American defense contractors who employ American workers

Waffledynamics said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

He said today they view what's going on as an existential threat to Russia and they are prepared to use them to defend Russia.

---

The proper response is "**** around & find out."

Again, Russia knows that the moment they do such a thing, they cease to exist. Putin knows this. Everyone knows this.

The alternative is that you have an end game that results in the entire world being subservient to Russia, China, and/or any other nuclear state that wishes to engage in megalomania. Russia is terrified of nukes. They are not unafraid. They know what will happen. Twist their arm until it breaks.

---

Why? Whos going to stop them?It will lead to NKorea levels of isolation, perhaps.
No one is going to risk a nuclear war over Ukraine.
Especially, not the folks who "stand with Ukraine"

Zobel said:

---

I need more info than what you're providing. Are there not standing oversight methods for spending? Do we need additional special ones for this?

Is there graft happening? Probably, almost certainly. There always is, corruption is a constant in war. But it doesn't seem to be a coherent objection to what we're doing. What's your alternative?

---

Why? What I posted is fact. It was reported extensively when it was approved.

Those weren't rhetorical questions.

Is the money actually going to Ukraine?
I mean it's a payoff to the defense industry right? (Enriching some Swiss bank accounts on the way, I'm sure)

deddog said:

---

Is the money actually going to Ukraine?
I mean it's a payoff to the defense industry right? (Enriching some Swiss bank accounts on the way, I'm sure)

---

Huge majority, no. Most of it will never leave our shores. It goes to fund our military industry as they ramp up to provide and replace. What your average LIV refuses to realize is that we are paying ourselves essentially. Ukraine wants pallets of cash? They should consult with Obama.

Also, a huge chunk of the initial aid package was for equipment in kind. Offloading our old stuff for "what it is worth". Which I am sure was overblown in absolute cost. And we no longer have to maintain it, so some considerable cost savings there.

Zobel said:

---

Those weren't rhetorical questions.

---

Then I answered them already.

The oversight was stripped from this as has been previously reported.

you haven't. are there not standing oversight methods for spending? do we need additional special ones for this?

The Ukes took yet another city in the Donetsk today, which Russia laughably "annexed". The Russians are on their heels mainly due to American artillery and weapons systems. The Russians simply don't have the weapons and equipment to match the Ukes at this point, regardless of manpower. Every dollar in weapons we send over there is a chance to show the rest of the world that American weapons will crush anyone on the planet. That's worth $10 billion.

Teslag said:

---

The Ukes took yet another city in the Donetsk today, which Russia laughably "annexed". The Russians are on their heels mainly due to American artillery and weapons systems. The Russians simply don't have the weapons and equipment to match the Ukes at this point, regardless of manpower. Every dollar in weapons we send over there is a chance to show the rest of the world that American weapons will crush anyone on the planet. That's worth $10 billion.

---

Needs another star

Zobel said:

---

you haven't. are there not standing oversight methods for spending? do we need additional special ones for this?

---

Dude look it up. It's common knowledge. It was reported everywhere when it was allocated. Rand Paul raised hell about it.

So you don't know the answer to my question or what?

Teslag said:

---

The Ukes took yet another city in the Donetsk today, which Russia laughably "annexed". The Russians are on their heels mainly due to American artillery and weapons systems. The Russians simply don't have the weapons and equipment to match the Ukes at this point, regardless of manpower. Every dollar in weapons we send over there is a chance to show the rest of the world that American weapons will crush anyone on the planet. That's worth $10 billion.

---

Not to mention that the Ukrainian soldier is demonstrably better at his job than his Russian counterpart.

Quote:

---

Presently, the necessary mechanisms to create immediate accountability for U.S. assistance to Ukraine largely exist, and the funding bill passed included several additional oversight mechanisms. The most recent aid package to Ukraine included over $8 billion in direct economic assistance to Ukraine's government. The spending bill include requirements that these funds are subject to a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. government and government of Ukraine that includes descriptions of how the funds will be used. Additionally, the money must be kept in a separate account that cannot be combined with other funds. The bill also asked for reporting from the State Department and USAID, specifically noting that "the Secretary of State or the Administrator of USAID, as appropriate, shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the uses of any funds provided for direct financial support to the Government of Ukraine . . . and the results achieved, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act and every 90 days thereafter." This funding for oversight and legislative provisions will provide transparency over the economic support funds provided directly to the government of Ukraine. Finally, the bill also included funding for oversight of various U.S. agencies' spending, including $5 million for the Department of State inspector general and $1 million for the USAID inspector general. This additional money provides the Office of Inspector General at both agencies with the resources needed to monitor assistance for Ukraine.

The pressure for effective oversight of the large amount of money appropriated to support Ukraine's defense of its country is understandable. There are real and serious concerns about the level of corruption in prewar Ukraine; however, there is little evidence that this corruption has affected the significant volumes of aid that Ukraine has received since the 2014 Maidan revolution. Given the stakes involvedUkraine's continued existence as an independent, democratic statethere is significant incentive for the government in Kyiv to ensure that the money provided is put to its intended uses. On the other hand, the relevant U.S. agencies must respond to congressional demands for oversight and work with Ukrainian partners in a transparent way to highlight the significant impact foreign assistance is having on the outcome of the war. The U.S. government must utilize existing mechanisms to demonstrate transparency and provide accountability to Congress on this important money. Political dynamics in Congress demand that the administration do so. Otherwise, the flow of aid may stop, or additional oversight mechanisms will be created that disincentivize the necessary risk-taking critical for Ukraine's success both during the war and throughout subsequent reconstruction efforts.

---

Looks like you have been reading incomplete news.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/balancing-oversight-and-risk-transparency-us-foreign-assistance-ukraine

Zobel said:

---

So you don't know the answer to my question or what?

---

Your questions are irrelevant.

The adequacy of existing oversight mechanisms seems pretty relevant to me.

Zobel said:

---

The adequacy of existing oversight mechanisms seems pretty relevant to me.

---

Which doesn't seem to be adequate when people from both sides of the aisle were raising hell about it when they passed it.

Read the article I linked. Facts don't seem to be on your side here.

Can you at least walk this statement back?
"You are ok just spending money on something with zero oversight and we have no idea how it's being spent."

Zobel said:

---

Read the article I linked. Facts don't seem to be on your side here.

Can you at least walk this statement back?
"You are ok just spending money on something with zero oversight and we have no idea how it's being spent."

---

Sure I'll walk that back but the same org you posted also wrote we needed more oversight from another article and 57 congressmen voted against it so there are legitimate concerns here.

Still don't understand why they need another $12B when we have a lot left to spend from the first two allocations.

id guess because it's different stuff. Maybe you should look into it?

The article specifically says Rand Paul's approach is incorrect and that there was millions of dollars in oversight funding in the bill, so pick your poison I guess?

Zobel said:

---

id guess because it's different stuff. Maybe you should look into it?

The article specifically says Rand Paul's approach is incorrect and that there was millions of dollars in oversight funding in the bill, so pick your poison I guess?

---

Yes, I'm sure it is. Let's give them $54B but only spend about 30% of it and then give them another $12B. Logical.

And the same group said it wasn't in a different article. Maybe they should pick a position.

You are complaining about a bill. You don't know what's in it. You don't know why it's written, what it's supposed to do, or what the previous bill did. You didn't know that there was oversight written in, millions in funding for multiple departments.

And yet you're saying it doesn't make any sense. Have some intellectual curiosity man, go fill in the gaps and then make an informed assessment. Right now you're just regurgitating things without inspection. You have no idea what you're mad about.

Zobel said:

---

You are complaining about a bill. You don't know what's in it. You don't know why it's written, what it's supposed to do, or what the previous bill did. You didn't know that there was oversight written in, millions in funding for multiple departments.

And yet you're saying it doesn't make any sense. Have some intellectual curiosity man, go fill in the gaps and then make an informed assessment. Right now you're just regurgitating things without inspection. You have no idea what you're mad about.

---

No, I know what's in it. I've broken it down by type of spend here on TA in the past.

It's logical to be skeptical of this funding. This is the US government we are talking about. My informed assessment is that we are wasting taxpayer dollars here like we always do. The only reason no one cares this time is because...Russia. It's ok to acknowledge that. It's reality. That's my only point.

then you missed all the oversight spending somehow. weird.

I guess some of you don't realize Ukraine was not where Putin would have stopped. This is a bargain to cut off Russia from any threat to NATO counties to get rid of Putin. We arent the only ones giving aid (mostly equipment). In the war with Ukraine, Putin has tortured and killed hundreds if not thousands of civilians yet we should stay out of it.

nhamp07 said:

---

I guess some of you don't realize Ukraine was not where Putin would have stopped. This is a bargain to cut off Russia from any threat to NATO counties to get rid of Putin. We arent the only ones giving aid (mostly equipment). In the war with Ukraine, Putin has tortured and killed hundreds if not thousands of civilians yet we should stay out of it.

---

He was never going to attack NATO. That's what many of you don't realize. It's ridiculous to think he would have. His plans were Ukraine, Kstan, and Moldova according to both US and British defense and intelligence. He intent was to try and build additional buffer between Russia and NATO (not attack it) and to secure more resources for his dying country.

Helping Ukraine is a separate matter. Hope he gets his ass kicked and that seems to be the case at this point.

The geography of buffer isn't in Ukraine. Ukraine is a big flat empty. Ukraine as a neutral state is a buffer.

The geography they need are the bessarabian and polish gaps, and this hasn't changed for centuries. It's the same reasons they invaded Georgia - to secure the Caucasus coastal approaches.



You're saying things like they're facts when they're not.

Zobel said:

---

The geography of buffer isn't in Ukraine. Ukraine is a big flat empty. Ukraine as a neutral state is a buffer.

The geography they need are the bessarabian and polish gaps, and this hasn't changed for centuries. It's the same reasons they invaded Georgia - to secure the Caucasus coastal approaches.



You're saying things like they're facts when they're not.

---

See second party of what I said. Russia is a dying country. Negative birth rates, uneducated, diseased, etc. They are trying to secure resources for themselves. Their moves here have been predicted for years now.