⚡️Ukraine's High Anti-Corruption Court arrests UkrLandFarming chairman Bakhmatyuk in absentia.

Bakhmatyuk is accused of bribing the former head of the Federal Tax Service Roman Nasirov and his adviser.https://t.co/CTkFOX1xQ8

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) March 8, 2023

German Chancellor Scholz was in DC last week, but there was no pomp and no press conference. Nobody knows why, but one obvious answer is Germany is furious at America.

A few days later the NY Times says a "pro-Ukraine group" blew up Germany's pipeline, not the US.

Convenient.

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 7, 2023

benchmark said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

I remember 3 months ago when Ukraine was about to win the war. When I pointed out it was just Russia consolidating and taking up an easier position for the winter I was ridiculed. And now that winter has passed the spring appears to be uncoiling. So predictable.

---

Oh yeah, Russia's 6 day tactical retreat from Kherson, Izyum, and Lyman before winter was a stroke of military genius. No doubt. Good call.

---

please post where ANYONE was stating that Ukraine was about to win the war 3 months ago!

that's a pretty bald faced lie right there.

Russian can't beat the Ukrainians with a bunch of old hand me down weapons and we should be concerned about a conflict with them?

The Ukraine Defense weapons drain:

Quote:

---

A particular piece of the most recent aid package that is drawing attention: additional 155mm artillery shells used by howitzers. Per the DoD fact sheet, the United States has already given Ukraine 160 155mm Howitzers and over 1,000,000 155mm artillery rounds.

In September 2022, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) used estimates of current U.S. stockpiles and DoD data from an earlier iteration of the aforementioned DoD fact sheet, this one released on September 9, to estimate the current strain continued support for Ukraine was placing on U.S. stockpiles. The September 9 fact sheet claimed the U.S. had given Ukraine 126 M777 howitzers and at least 561,000 rounds of 155mm artillery ammunition, which led CSIS to determine U.S. stockpiles were limited then. Just six months later, the United States has nearly doubled the amount of 155mm artillery shells given to Ukraine.

As it stands now, the U.S. Army produces about 14,000 155mm shells per month. Extrapolate that to a year, and that's just 168,000 shellsless than a fifth of the number of 155mm shells the U.S. has given Ukraine in the past year. If all Ukrainian aid ended tomorrow, it would take the U.S. just under six years to produce enough 155mm shells to bring U.S. stockpiles back to pre-war levels.

This explains why the U.S. is looking to boost the production rate of these shells to 20,000 shells per month sometime this spring; but even then, it would take just over 4 years to replenish 155mm shell stockpiles. This is why the U.S. wants to increase that production more than fourfold, from 20,000 to 90,000 shells per month, by 2025. Congress has already provided the factories that produce 155mm shells $420 million, but the United States is projected to spend nearly $2 billion on boosting the production of 155mm shells this year alone. Even at that new production rate, it would still take eleven months and change to bring 155mm shell stockpiles back to pre-war levels, assuming the U.S. stopped giving Ukraine 155mm shells entirely.

…

Even though the 155mm shells are less technologically advanced than other military aid the U.S. has given to Ukraine, making the U.S. military's production goals come to fruition is a daunting task. For the 155mm shells, at least there are open factory lines and plenty of infrastructure for the U.S. military industrial base to start from. The same can't be said about the gun that fires these shells. The M-777 Howitzer production line is closed, and CSIS claims that stockpiles of the weapon were already limited back in September when the U.S. had given 126 M-777s to Ukraine. That number has since risen to 160.

In total, CSIS estimates that the U.S. military has only about 1,000 M-777 systems. To avoid stripping howitzers away from other military units, the U.S. has started providing more 105mm howitzers, of which the U.S. has large amounts in reserve because units have been shifting away from them in recent years.

Furthermore, CSIS claims there are likely older 155mm howitzers, the M198, currently in storage. One wonders why the U.S. military did not start with those, rather than the more advanced M-777.
Other weapons stockpiles have dwindled, tooespecially for weapons that have proven themselves especially useful on the battlefield in Ukraine, such as Javelins and Stingers.

The U.S. military has provided the Ukrainians with more than 8,500 Javelins, a portable, shoulder-fired anti-tank missile system, but current production levels, split between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, are only 400 Javelins per month. It's a marked increase of previous production levels, which CSIS estimated sat at around 1,000 Javelins per year. Nevertheless, the U.S. has voluntarily given about a third of its Javelin stockpile over to the Ukrainians.


The U.S. has handed Ukraine about a third of its Stinger stockpile as well, amounting to over 1,600 of the shoulder-fired anti-aircraft system. But the production line for Stinger missiles is in worse shape than that of the Javelin, kept open only thanks to small amounts of foreign sales, according to CSIS.
Raytheon Technologies chief executive Greg Hayes previously brought up concerns about dwindling Javelin stockpiles in December 2022. "In the first 10 months of the war, we've essentially used up 13 years of Stinger production, and five years worth of Javelin production," Hayes reportedly said. "So the question is, how are we going to resupply, restock the inventories?"

---

As @PeterZeihan has said, the potential Russian force numbers mean that Ukraine needs to kill/incapacitate 8:1 Rus/Ukr. In Bakhmut the ratio was 3:1, and they lost. It's going to be a close call whether Ukraine gets the 60,000 trained/rearmed men in the field in time.

— Henry George (@intothefuture45) March 9, 2023

nortex97 said:

---

The Ukraine Defense weapons drain:

Quote:

---

Furthermore, CSIS claims there are likely older 155mm howitzers, the M198, currently in storage. One wonders why the U.S. military did not start with those, rather than the more advanced M-777.

---

---

Thi is a rhetorical question written by a think tank guy on K Street who has never visited a gun line in action, let alone served on one. He hasn't even been paying attention to recent events in the US military that would answer his own question.

Those 87 M777s that the US transferred to Ukraine were exactly the same guns of which CMC Gen David Berger just divested from the Marine Corps . These were guns that were being maintained until very recently. It was a huge mistake for the Corps to divest of them but, he did it. <Lord, please save the Marines from their Commandant>

The M777 requires a crew of 7 vice 11 to fully man an M198.

The family of munitions for 155mm guns has been updated significantly in the past 15 years and there are no firing tables for some of the newershells and propellants to be fired from the old M198s.

The M198 has a gross weight of 15,600 pounds versus 9,600 pounds for an M777. It takes a lot less truck and a lot less fuel to move an M777 i.e. smaller logistics tail.

The M198 was a maintenance nightmare because of its hydraulic recoil mechanism and the equilibrators that made it possible to elevate a 9000 pound cannon tube ith a hand crank. The equilibrators were pressurized with nitrogen at 1650psi. The gun docs always had to be close by to add nitrogen from bottles. The M198s in storage for 15 years would only fire one time even if they were repressurized because their seals are dry. The tube would go out of battery and stay there. This happened routinely with brand new guns that were stored for years in the caves in Norway or aboard MPF ships. When they were offloaded to be used, the recoil mechanism hydraulics had to be rebuilt before it could be fIred.

Those are some of the reasons that the Ukes were given M777s.

That makes some sense, yet it is still true they have manpower to man the older systems and we should be/have been told over and over they are just getting old/depreciated stuff we don't and won't need which...well anyway.

Thx, I'm admittedly not a field artillery guy/expert. Points taken.

There is no reason for politicians to keep going to Ukraine. No one cares about the performative nonsense. https://t.co/N3JwUWtHPh

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) March 9, 2023

Proud of McCarthy for not engaging in the Ukraine visit performance art BS.

Sadly we can’t believe anything the government tells us. Downside of a decade of lying. https://t.co/pwgetDjzSM

— @amuse (@amuse) March 10, 2023

Between our government, the Russians, and CNN, there is little to be believed about this, imho.

As soon as the Russians take the road to Khromovo, Bakhmut will gradually begin to transform from a fortress into a large mass grave. Then there will be no point in keeping silent about things that have been bothering you for many months. Maybe someone will see treason in them,… https://t.co/g6FJ7NY1Ag

— Def Mon (@DefMon3) March 11, 2023

1/2 Guerre d'Ukraine | 10/03/23

Secteurs :
🌐 Kreminna🔹U230310-0844
🌐 Siversk🔹U230310-0846
🌐 Bakhmut-Chasiv Yar🔹U230310-0855
🌐 Niu-York-Kostiantynivka🔹U230310-0858@Michel_Goya @egea_blog@jdomerchet @duprat_alain#UkraineRussianWar #GuerreEnUkraine pic.twitter.com/YRjPApYNnh

— Poulet volant (@Pouletvolant3) March 11, 2023

It looks like the russians have entered the 'azom' industrial sector, and some group of Ukrainians are still holding some parts in the west of town.

BREAKING NEWS!

🇷🇺⚔️🇺🇦The forces of the Wagner PMCs broke into the huge AZOM industrial zone in the northern part of central city in Bakhmut - says the AFU soldier#Russia #Putin #NATO #TheUS #Biden #Ukraine #UkraineRussianWar pic.twitter.com/KF2uZhYEgg

— Russian Victory is Inevitable 🇷🇺 (@WinRussiawill) March 11, 2023

Richard Medhurst Independent Journalist giving us a great history lesson on why NATO is NOT a force for good, how sanctions don’t work, the double standards in bombing nations, etc.
You will understand that Putin didn’t just wake up one day and decide to invade Ukraine! The… https://t.co/OSZ5I674In pic.twitter.com/69m4RmpEe5

— ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể (@TheThe1776) March 11, 2023

Ukraine will get its first tanks in May. Biden won’t allow peace talks until he sees how much progress they make. https://t.co/IrSaPuU9lL

— @amuse (@amuse) March 11, 2023

Our self defeating strategy:

Quote:

---

Yes, the president has said, correctly, that America ought to and will help Ukraine for "as long as it takes." What he's neglected to mention is how long that will be. Nor has he acted to move forward the day when Russian forces leave Ukraine and Ukraine is integrated into the West's institutional architecture. These are questions Biden doesn't take up, decisions he'd rather not make.

Biden's primary interest is U.S. domestic politics. And though he has been right to support Ukraine, he has also put NATO unity ahead of Ukrainian success. He has played into Vladimir Putin's nuclear gamesmanship by preemptively ruling out measures that the Russian despot might consider escalatory. Biden's self-deterrence has contributed to the situation Zelensky and the Ukrainian people face now: They are strong enough to control some 83 percent of their territory, but lack the capability to win back the rest. And the war goes on.

Biden gave Ukraine a fighting chance. But his policy is unsustainable. By practicing self-deterrence, and by resisting calls to dramatically expand defense production and ramp up weapons transfers, Biden has reproduced the conditions of past "forever wars" that America and her allies have stalemated or lost.

Biden permits the invaders to operate from a sanctuary, just as past presidents allowed in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, by denying Ukraine the means to strike inside Russian territory. His provision to Ukraine of enough resources to survive, but not enough to thrive, erodes U.S. domestic support for intervention by prolonging the conflict. A similar dynamic took hold during the Iraq war, when failure to devote sufficient manpower at the outset of the campaign and for several years thereafter had calamitous effects.

---

Ukraine, or whatever it's been called through the centuries, has just regularly been conquered by folks on all sides.



It almost seems like the 1991 borders of Ukraine are ahistorical, particularly the borders including Crimea, via the treaty of Pereyaslav (1954).

nortex97 said:

---

That makes some sense, yet it is still true they have manpower to man the older systems and we should be/have been told over and over they are just getting old/depreciated stuff we don't and won't need which...well anyway.

Thx, I'm admittedly not a field artillery guy/expert. Points taken.

There is no reason for politicians to keep going to Ukraine. No one cares about the performative nonsense. https://t.co/N3JwUWtHPh

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) March 9, 2023

Proud of McCarthy for not engaging in the Ukraine visit performance art BS.

---

Dumb take by Adam. Let Biden and his admin do the visits. Kevin's priority should be America and fighting off our largest domestic threat which is far left ideology.

Battle for Bakhmut: Scenes from the frontlines https://t.co/0xGbVqJcau via @Reuters

— Arnout Brouwers (@arnout_brouwers) March 13, 2023

Horrible footage.

#XiJinping could visit Russia as early as next week and speak virtually with his Ukrainian counterpart likely following his visit to Moscow next week while Moscow and Kyiv both reported intense fighting over the eastern city of #Bakhmut https://t.co/zA5SCIJHoM #VladimirPutin

— Alexander von Witzleben (@AlexWitzleben) March 13, 2023

nortex97 said:

---

Sadly we can’t believe anything the government tells us. Downside of a decade of lying. https://t.co/pwgetDjzSM

— @amuse (@amuse) March 10, 2023

Between our government, the Russians, and CNN, there is little to be believed about this, imho.

---

The Moldovans have said similar.

nortex97 said:

---

That makes some sense, yet it is still true they have manpower to man the older systems and we should be/have been told over and over they are just getting old/depreciated stuff we don't and won't need which...well anyway.

---

"They have the manpower" isn't really a valid argument when you're talking about needing a 50% larger crew. That means less troops don't other jobs or fewer guns on the battlefield. It also means more men to train and a larger training program. Both are undesirable. If Russia is trying to wake s way of attrition, Ukraine needs to use their men as efficiently as possible.

That also means the less logistics the better. If the M198 is not as reliable and requires more maintenance, then you have more men working logistics and support. If it's heavier, you're using more fuel that could go to tanks or other armored vehicles. If there are no firing tables for modern ammunition, it means less accuracy and using more munitions and more logistics.

In reality, the impact of giving them M198's would be measured in the hundreds, if not thousands, of men across 90 guns or more. The crews alone would require 320 extra soldiers if they're not rotating out at any point.

The Marines decided to divest them because they see their next major conflict in island hopping and want to invest in more relevant weapons. They're going to need to be able to hold austere positions and engage targets from long range in order to control territory. They also need to be highly mobile. Conventional towed artillery is poorly suited for that, which is why they want more things like MLRS, air defense, long range resupply drones, etc. The army is built for a more conventional land war and might use M777's, but the Marines are looking to retool themselves for what they see as the next conflict. If they've already decided they don't want them, now they're going to someone who does.

potential US presidential Republican candidates weigh in on Ukraine:

Republican 2024 hopefuls respond to Tucker Carlson's questions about their stance on Russia-Ukraine war https://t.co/JnsqmAnkFU pic.twitter.com/goYZgMmJwt

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 14, 2023

Tucker on the responses from potential republican presidential candidates:

We asked every potential 2024 GOP presidential candidate to answer six key questions on the war in Ukraine. As promised, their full responses are below. pic.twitter.com/tjcM4w54cR

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 14, 2023

Ron DeSantis said:

Quote:

---

DeSantis told Carlson the U.S. "should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders," adding that providing F-16s and long-range missiles would be "off the table." He also said, "Our citizens are also entitled to know how the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being utilized in Ukraine."

---

Quote:

---

Pence said he does not support sending a "blank check" but warned "withholding or reducing support will have consequence" and that "the cost will be far greater" if Putin invaded NATO allies.

---

Desantis

Former President @realDonaldTrump answers our Ukraine questionnaire:

“Like inflation and numerous other self inflicted wounds and mistakes made over the past two years, Russia would definitely not have raided and attacked Ukraine if I was your President. In fact, for four years… https://t.co/e3CpDfLbjq

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 14, 2023

Trump:

Former President @realDonaldTrump answers our Ukraine questionnaire:

“Like inflation and numerous other self inflicted wounds and mistakes made over the past two years, Russia would definitely not have raided and attacked Ukraine if I was your President. In fact, for four years… https://t.co/e3CpDfLbjq

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 14, 2023

Pence:

Former VP @Mike_Pence answers our Ukraine questionnaire

Is opposing Russia in Ukraine a vital American national strategic interest?

“When the United States supports Ukraine in their fight against Putin, we follow the Reagan doctrine, and we support those who fight our enemies… https://t.co/YpWUYJ732M

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 14, 2023

Trump

South Dakota Governor @govkristinoem answers our Ukraine questionnaire:

Q: Is opposing Russia in Ukraine a vital American national strategic interest?

A: “The primary external threat to the United States in Communist China. Our opposition to Russia has heightened this threat… https://t.co/UGRbSPRInK

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 14, 2023

Chris Christi weighs in:

Former @GovChristie on Ukraine:
“Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is a national security issue that threatens our alliances and our standing in the world. Our objective is to assist Ukraine sufficiently to enable them to defeat Russian forces and restore their sovereignty.… https://t.co/TaAKp3NO27

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 14, 2023

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

That makes some sense, yet it is still true they have manpower to man the older systems and we should be/have been told over and over they are just getting old/depreciated stuff we don't and won't need which...well anyway.

---

"They have the manpower" isn't really a valid argument when you're talking about needing a 50% larger crew. That means less troops don't other jobs or fewer guns on the battlefield. It also means more men to train and a larger training program. Both are undesirable. If Russia is trying to wake s way of attrition, Ukraine needs to use their men as efficiently as possible.

That also means the less logistics the better. If the M198 is not as reliable and requires more maintenance, then you have more men working logistics and support. If it's heavier, you're using more fuel that could go to tanks or other armored vehicles. If there are no firing tables for modern ammunition, it means less accuracy and using more munitions and more logistics.

In reality, the impact of giving them M198's would be measured in the hundreds, if not thousands, of men across 90 guns or more. The crews alone would require 320 extra soldiers if they're not rotating out at any point.

The Marines decided to divest them because they see their next major conflict in island hopping and want to invest in more relevant weapons. They're going to need to be able to hold austere positions and engage targets from long range in order to control territory. They also need to be highly mobile. Conventional towed artillery is poorly suited for that, which is why they want more things like MLRS, air defense, long range resupply drones, etc. The army is built for a more conventional land war and might use M777's, but the Marines are looking to retool themselves for what they see as the next conflict. If they've already decided they don't want them, now they're going to someone who does.

---

There's nothing inherently wrong/bad with the M198's in storage, and if they wanted peak armor efficiency they shouldn't be getting Abrams either, as they drink a lot of special gas and are heavier too, plus the russian designs since the 70's all have an auto loader (as do French/Japanese) unlike ours so that's an extra man for each.

Towed artillery is almost always less complex and more reliable/easier to maintain than armored/tracked versions. Hook it up to whatever truck is around and move out, or helo-lift it even if you have the capacity, much more easily. On paper, fwiw, Russian artillery is absolutely outstanding with excellent fire control systems and a real range advantage in general. They've also kept developing fun new toys/versions. In practice…well, no.

Plus, we've given them other 'old' stuff like discontinued versions of the slings blades, and M4's instead of the newer more accurate/integrated/more effective M-7's (Sig Spears) with their fancy $15K scopes that let the infantrymen not worry about pesky things like windage/range/what their team mates are shooting at.

Quote:

---

There's nothing inherently wrong/bad with the M198's in storage,

---

There is a lot that has inherently gone wrong with the M198s over the past 16 years. They were mothballed for the purpose of a potential Foeign Military Sales (FMS) program in a peacetime environment, not as a ready reserve for a war in progress. The FMS program would begin with a depot level rebuild to remplacement every spring and every seal and every bearing in those guns before reassembling them. In FMS, the buyer pays the cost of this year-long rebuild program and the contract to do that rebuild is a contract usually awarded to the old OEM. Old production lines and toolings wuld have to be reset. Those production lines are presently being set for new weaponry and aren't even available.

There are no stocks of secondary repair parts for M198s. Th M198 TDP is mostly 2D drawings as it was designed in the days of AutoCAD for MS-DOS.

The budget for corrosion control has been zero for over 15 years and they have been sitting in the wonderful humidity of Albany, GA for a decade and a half under rubberized gun tarps under a sun shade. That's what is inherently wrong with M198s in 2023. It's the same for other mothballed equipment which is why it is faster and cheaper to send the current technology.

Not sure I'd agree on armor efficiency just because the M1 has an extra man and guzzles gas. It has advantages that can justify that. Mainly, they're more survivable and capable. The Soviet autoloaders are part of the reason the munitions are stored under the turret and Russia is the reigning turret toss world champion. The M1 is also better armored and gunned than Russian tanks. Ultimately, combat losses hurt less, and you're probably getting a much better kill ratio. The M198 doesn't bring anything else to the table to justify the added crew size and weight.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

The rabid pro-war posters on here who support endless checks written to Ukraine have asked repeatedly why this is a bad thing and how people can be against supporting Ukraine and also not pro Russia.

Here is why:

Two videos one short one longer.
Short

Long


Cliff Notes:
1) NATO has expanded ever eastward since the Soviet bloc broke up. We pledged not to. This provokes Russia. Additionally there are now NATO countries on Russia's borders.
2) For people who have said the US has not provoked Russia or given it any reasons to be concerned about their security- NATO under W tried to put nuclear capable missile systems in Poland capable of carrying nuclear loads.
3) 2014 Obama and SOROS NGO'S funded disruptors to overthrow Ukraine's government and then sent in officials to hand pick replacements that were proAmerica.
4) At this time Biden is VP and in charge of Ukraine policy. This is when Burisma who had ties to old Russian leadership decided to get in bed with Biden so they could get in with the Biden hand picked government.
5) Trump wanted this investigated and this is one of the big reasons why he was impeached. The dems did not want him uncovering the shady **** going on there or screwing with their new money laundering playground.
6) before this started, Harris and the current administration joked about getting Ukraine to join NATO. Putin made it clear this was a hard line and America pursued it anyway.
7) Ukraine initially wanted to negotiate with Russia as the America/soros led coup in 2014 had alienated a large western region (the donbas region) of ethnic Russians. Rhis region was unstable and wants to join Russia. Putin wanted Ukraine to give this region up and pledge to not join NATO. Ukraine was okay with this until Biden and the West got involved.

I am not proRussia or proPutin but how with this knowledge can you be in favor of continuously cutting checks and support continuing a war with a nuclear power when this war is being fought because 1) dirty American politicans want another ****hole to launder money through 2) we helped instigate this war 3) negotiations would end it quickly and help Ukraine citizens who want to join Russia do that. 4) knowing the events that set off this whole thing were directly orchestrated by George soros.

---

As to your Cliff Notes:
Who cares? How we got here is mostly irrelevant. Once Russia invaded all the pretext about 2014, and NATO and everything else became irrelevant. The only thing that matters is where we are right now.

So which is it? Is Russia invading Ukraine to help the ethnic Russians that just want to go back to being part of the motherland? Or are they invading because of evil, threatening NATO expansion?

If it is the former, then Russia should be content with the areas they have conquered so far and not be interested in further conquest. There is, however, the small issue of so-called "ethnic Russians" in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. When Russia makes the inevitable claim that these poor, downtrodden souls are being oppressed by their governments (who happen to be members of NATO), is that sufficient to justify Russia invading there also?

If it is the latter, then the only option open to Russia is to conquer the entirety of Ukraine and that does not portend good things for the Baltic states.

Oh, and Ukraine is a sovereign country that is free to pursue their own domestic and foreign policies without having to ask Russia "mother may I" (as is Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland). The very reason that Ukraine wanted membership in NATO is what is playing out now.

Any and all Ukrainians that want to be part of Russia could and can solve that problem rather easily: move to Russia.

This fight in Ukraine is bigger than just Ukraine and it is incredibly short sighted to see it only that way.

Finally, no one is in favor of "continuously cutting checks" to Ukraine. There has been no new money allocated to Ukraine since the omnibus bill in December.

"There has been no new money allocated to Ukraine since…oh 75 or so days ago."

LOL. US Navy in mid January: 'well, we just sent them harpoons but we need to figure out how to either re-arm ourselves or send them more by June."

nortex97 said:

---

"There has been no new money allocated to Ukraine since…oh 75 or so days ago."

LOL. US Navy in mid January: 'well, we just sent them harpoons but we need to figure out how to either re-arm ourselves or send them more by June."

---

That says nothing about additional funds for Ukraine.

pagerman @ work said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

"There has been no new money allocated to Ukraine since…oh 75 or so days ago."

LOL. US Navy in mid January: 'well, we just sent them harpoons but we need to figure out how to either re-arm ourselves or send them more by June."

---

That says nothing about additional funds for Ukraine.

---

As a reminder, oh great war savant (not an ad hominem, that is sarcasm, fyi), you closed with this:

Quote:

---

There has been no new money allocated to Ukraine since the omnibus bill in December.

---

It's March 14th. Meanwhile, less than 3 weeks ago we announced a new half billion dollar program, outside of...allocations. Milley says more is needed via appropriations by June.

Do you think you are proving a point somehow that we aren't continuing to throw more weapons into the fight because no appropriations have been passed since December 2022, and might not be until May or June? How much is enough, is what I'd ask the Ukraine-war cheerleaders, just this year (2023)?

Quote:

---

As Statista shows, American military aid to Ukraine in 2022 has already exceeded the costs of American military spending in the Afghan War from 2001-2010.

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

The rabid pro-war posters on here who support endless checks written to Ukraine have asked repeatedly why this is a bad thing and how people can be against supporting Ukraine and also not pro Russia.

Here is why:

Two videos one short one longer.
Short

Long


Cliff Notes:
1) NATO has expanded ever eastward since the Soviet bloc broke up. We pledged not to. This provokes Russia. Additionally there are now NATO countries on Russia's borders.
2) For people who have said the US has not provoked Russia or given it any reasons to be concerned about their security- NATO under W tried to put nuclear capable missile systems in Poland capable of carrying nuclear loads.
3) 2014 Obama and SOROS NGO'S funded disruptors to overthrow Ukraine's government and then sent in officials to hand pick replacements that were proAmerica.
4) At this time Biden is VP and in charge of Ukraine policy. This is when Burisma who had ties to old Russian leadership decided to get in bed with Biden so they could get in with the Biden hand picked government.
5) Trump wanted this investigated and this is one of the big reasons why he was impeached. The dems did not want him uncovering the shady **** going on there or screwing with their new money laundering playground.
6) before this started, Harris and the current administration joked about getting Ukraine to join NATO. Putin made it clear this was a hard line and America pursued it anyway.
7) Ukraine initially wanted to negotiate with Russia as the America/soros led coup in 2014 had alienated a large western region (the donbas region) of ethnic Russians. Rhis region was unstable and wants to join Russia. Putin wanted Ukraine to give this region up and pledge to not join NATO. Ukraine was okay with this until Biden and the West got involved.

I am not proRussia or proPutin but how with this knowledge can you be in favor of continuously cutting checks and support continuing a war with a nuclear power when this war is being fought because 1) dirty American politicans want another ****hole to launder money through 2) we helped instigate this war 3) negotiations would end it quickly and help Ukraine citizens who want to join Russia do that. 4) knowing the events that set off this whole thing were directly orchestrated by George soros.

---

See Russia shooting down our drone. Nothing to see here!

The US has undoubtedly been providing Ukraine with Intel and logistical assistance.

It was unmanned and likely going to provide Ukraine with whatever Intel it gathered.

The correct response is not outrage that it got shot down.

The correct response is tactically why WOULDN'T they shoot it down?

Because shooting down aircraft operating over international waters is an act of war. The didn't shoot it down apparently, they collided with it

pagerman @ work said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

The rabid pro-war posters on here who support endless checks written to Ukraine have asked repeatedly why this is a bad thing and how people can be against supporting Ukraine and also not pro Russia.

Here is why:

Two videos one short one longer.
Short

Long


Cliff Notes:
1) NATO has expanded ever eastward since the Soviet bloc broke up. We pledged not to. This provokes Russia. Additionally there are now NATO countries on Russia's borders.
2) For people who have said the US has not provoked Russia or given it any reasons to be concerned about their security- NATO under W tried to put nuclear capable missile systems in Poland capable of carrying nuclear loads.
3) 2014 Obama and SOROS NGO'S funded disruptors to overthrow Ukraine's government and then sent in officials to hand pick replacements that were proAmerica.
4) At this time Biden is VP and in charge of Ukraine policy. This is when Burisma who had ties to old Russian leadership decided to get in bed with Biden so they could get in with the Biden hand picked government.
5) Trump wanted this investigated and this is one of the big reasons why he was impeached. The dems did not want him uncovering the shady **** going on there or screwing with their new money laundering playground.
6) before this started, Harris and the current administration joked about getting Ukraine to join NATO. Putin made it clear this was a hard line and America pursued it anyway.
7) Ukraine initially wanted to negotiate with Russia as the America/soros led coup in 2014 had alienated a large western region (the donbas region) of ethnic Russians. Rhis region was unstable and wants to join Russia. Putin wanted Ukraine to give this region up and pledge to not join NATO. Ukraine was okay with this until Biden and the West got involved.

I am not proRussia or proPutin but how with this knowledge can you be in favor of continuously cutting checks and support continuing a war with a nuclear power when this war is being fought because 1) dirty American politicans want another ****hole to launder money through 2) we helped instigate this war 3) negotiations would end it quickly and help Ukraine citizens who want to join Russia do that. 4) knowing the events that set off this whole thing were directly orchestrated by George soros.

---

As to your Cliff Notes:
Who cares? How we got here is mostly irrelevant. Once Russia invaded all the pretext about 2014, and NATO and everything else became irrelevant. The only thing that matters is where we are right now. Without an accurate understanding of what foreign policy blunders led to this invasion and the current war, how can you expect us to be able to resolve it short of a war of total capitulation which if Russia loses would end in nuclear war. Wars either end through complete capitulation or negotiation. To resolve through negotiation we must understand the causes. Complete capitulation either ends up with ukraine in ashes (unacceptable to the west) or Russia losing and launching nukes as a last ditch **** you to the west. Neither capitulation scenarios is good. Which leaves us with negotiation

So which is it? Is Russia invading Ukraine to help the ethnic Russians that just want to go back to being part of the motherland? Or are they invading because of evil, threatening NATO expansion? both. Wars rarely if ever start because of a single central cause

If it is the former, then Russia should be content with the areas they have conquered so far and not be interested in further conquest. There is, however, the small issue of so-called "ethnic Russians" in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. When Russia makes the inevitable claim that these poor, downtrodden souls are being oppressed by their governments (who happen to be members of NATO), is that sufficient to justify Russia invading there also?

If it is the latter, then the only option open to Russia is to conquer the entirety of Ukraine and that does not portend good things for the Baltic states.

Oh, and Ukraine is a sovereign country that is free to pursue their own domestic and foreign policies without having to ask Russia "mother may I" (as is Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland). The very reason that Ukraine wanted membership in NATO is what is playing out now. fair enough. So if Cuba wants to pursue its own foreign policies and buy nukes from Russia ur cool with that? It's their own foreign policy right? As to ur point about WHY Ukraine wanted NATO membership- you can't piss in another country's cereal for a decade and then when they smack you in the face say "See! You are a jerk! That is why I was passing in your cereal to begin with!" Which is basically what the US did via their Ukraine policy. We pissed in Russia's cereal, instigated a coup which was just as corrupt as the administration that was pro Russia except this time pro USA and got offended when Russia viewed that as a security threat and said ya know what? Screw finessing a takeover like the US did...we are just gonna take the cou try over.

Any and all Ukrainians that want to be part of Russia could and can solve that problem rather easily: move to Russia.

This fight in Ukraine is bigger than just Ukraine and it is incredibly short sighted to see it only that way. Yes it is. It is a much bigger indication of how the US has acted globally with zero regard for the consequences of our actions. We infringed in the sphere of another global power's influence and said "**** you. We want Ukraine so we are going ot take it." And now we are finding out how bad Russia wants to keep Ukraine. America's days of being able to do whatever we want with impunity are coming to an end. This time we bit off more than we could chew and russia decided to flip over the game board.

Finally, no one is in favor of "continuously cutting checks" to Ukraine. There has been no new money allocated to Ukraine since the omnibus bill in December.

---

As to your last point several other posters have pointed out its inaccurate.

GAC06 said:

---

Because shooting down aircraft operating over international waters is an act of war. The didn't shoot it down apparently, they collided with it

---

And what do you think it was doing there, delivering a pizza?

Providing the Ukrainians with Intel, tactical, logistical support and munitions by the shiploads could be viewed as an act of war as well. Thank God the russians haven't called us on that.

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

Quote:

---

As to your last point several other posters have pointed out its inaccurate.

---

No, it is not incorrect.

The president, the secretaries of the various branches nor departments or anyone else other than congress can appropriate new spending. All they can do is direct spending already approved by congress. As such any spending being announced is coming from a source previously authorized by congress. In the case of Biden's announcement while he was in Kyiv (for example) the monies were provided by the presidential drawdown authority derived via section 506 (a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act. Biden didn't just decide "screw it, I am a law unto myself" and usurp congressional authority and appropriate new funds that had not already been approved. It's not a "blank check" because there are limits to the amount of funds available through this mechanism.

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

---

Direct conflict results in Russia getting their ass handed to them. The only card they have to play is nukes and guess what, they don't want that either.

We could respond to this incident by annihilating the airbase the flankers came from. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over that.

GAC06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

---

Direct conflict results in Russia getting their ass handed to them. The only card they have to play is nukes and guess what, they don't want that either.

We could respond to this incident by annihilating the airbase the flankers came from. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over that.

---

Umm we attack their airbase they will definitely escalate.

They shot down a piece of equipment. We destroy a base and if there is loss of life **** will hit the fan.

It amazes me that you guys don't think that nukes are on the table. Have you never played a board game...using nukes is the equivalent of turning over the game board when you would rather everyone lose than someone else win.

I'm not saying we should hit them directly. I'm saying we could and they wouldn't respond meaningfully. They know they are our *****.

GAC06 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Flying outside their airspace isn't an act of war. We do it all the time and will continue doing it. And lol at them "calling us" on it.

---

By "calling us" I mean escalated to something that would cause us to put boots on the ground.

We do not need boots on the ground because the next step up is nuclear war.

It shocks me that you guys don't seem to care about that at all.

---

Direct conflict results in Russia getting their ass handed to them. The only card they have to play is nukes and guess what, they don't want that either.

We could respond to this incident by annihilating the airbase the flankers came from. Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war over that.

---

There's a whole thread with inanity about how wonderful it is to see dead Russians and keyboard-loving war, but this isn't it, fyi. Miss Lindsey agrees fwiw with shooting down Russian planes now but he, like John McCain and Joe Biden, has a multi-decade history of just being wrong about his warhawk foreign policy ideas.