Biden administration announces additional $325 million in military aid to Ukraine

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, Thorgal said:

Biolabs.

Why is a biolab a WMD?

[Cory1848]

9 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Well, you got that part right.  It's NOT my problem. Whether or not Russia get the Donbas or a few thousand assorted square kms of territory doesn't register with me. 

 

I honestly don't see a scenario where Ukraine comes out unscathed, all territory restored, etc.  Making no attempt to bring Russia to the bargaining table is rank stupidity. Can you tell me a realistic ending that doesn't involve NATO ground/air forces getting involved yet gets victory for Ukraine? All that is happening now is prolonging the inevitable. 

 

Ukraine can't win without other nations intervening directly, and that is a potential nightmare with huge risks and little potential gain. Or is that OK-widening the war to include NATO directly? Because that's what it's gonna take to shift the Russians. 

I think the basic contention here is, you don’t believe the Ukrainians can win the war without NATO boots on the ground, and others here (myself included) think they can, provided they continue to receive military aid from the West (and more of it, and more quickly). The Ukrainians are far more motivated, and Putin is very vulnerable, especially as Russia’s staggering losses continue to mount. He can’t continue to throw hundreds of thousands of troops into battle, with tens of thousands coming home in body bags. Regardless of his grip on power in Russia, it’s not sustainable, any more than it was in Vietnam, or Afghanistan, or the nascent United States (for the British redcoats), or any other colonial war.

 

You think there’s a risk of escalation and “WWIII” if the war continues; I think there’s a bigger risk of “WWIII” by appeasing the aggressor. There are legitimate arguments on both sides, and history doesn’t always repeat itself, but it seems clear to me that giving Putin what he wants would be a huge mistake, and despite your saying that you have little personal interest in the conflict, the conflict would start to become very interested in you.

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, Cory1848 said:

I think the basic contention here is, you don’t believe the Ukrainians can win the war without NATO boots on the ground, and others here (myself included) think they can, provided they continue to receive military aid from the West (and more of it, and more quickly). The Ukrainians are far more motivated, and Putin is very vulnerable, especially as Russia’s staggering losses continue to mount. He can’t continue to throw hundreds of thousands of troops into battle, with tens of thousands coming home in body bags. Regardless of his grip on power in Russia, it’s not sustainable, any more than it was in Vietnam, or Afghanistan, or the nascent United States (for the British redcoats), or any other colonial war.

 

You think there’s a risk of escalation and “WWIII” if the war continues; I think there’s a bigger risk of “WWIII” by appeasing the aggressor. There are legitimate arguments on both sides, and history doesn’t always repeat itself, but it seems clear to me that giving Putin what he wants would be a huge mistake, and despite your saying that you have little personal interest in the conflict, the conflict would start to become very interested in you.

Demographics are working against Ukraine. A possible related example would be Finland vs USSR in world war 2. The Finns put up a valiant resistance but in the end needed Germany to help them.

 

Ukraine is the same. They will simply run out of men faster than Russia. Particularly if they want to go on the offensive to recapture their lost territory.  For their faults, Russians are very tenacious and stubborn on the defensive, as Ukraine is finding out with this years failed spring campaign.  So no, they cannot regain what they had before the war unless NATO jumps in. And turning a regional conflict into a global one is a tragedy that need not happen. The risks are too great. 

 

Military aid is useless without troops to use it, troops who are trained to use it properly. No time to train, no time to ship everything they want. Best result will be a stalemate. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Would you negotiate with Hitler (back in the day) if Germany invaded your country?

Ask the French that.

[Cory1848]

24 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Demographics are working against Ukraine. A possible related example would be Finland vs USSR in world war 2. The Finns put up a valiant resistance but in the end needed Germany to help them.

 

Ukraine is the same. They will simply run out of men faster than Russia. Particularly if they want to go on the offensive to recapture their lost territory.  For their faults, Russians are very tenacious and stubborn on the defensive, as Ukraine is finding out with this years failed spring campaign.  So no, they cannot regain what they had before the war unless NATO jumps in. And turning a regional conflict into a global one is a tragedy that need not happen. The risks are too great. 

 

Military aid is useless without troops to use it, troops who are trained to use it properly. No time to train, no time to ship everything they want. Best result will be a stalemate. 

Well, I think Ukrainian capacity versus Russia is greater than the Finns’ versus the USSR. The Ukrainians HAVE managed to push the Russians out of large chunks of territory (around Kharkiv and Kherson, and away from Kiev), although the current offensive seems to be very slow. Some news sources say they’re making progress; others not so much. On demographics, for sure the Ukrainians have fewer people to fight, but I don’t think their casualty figures are as high as the Russians’. And the Russian will to fight will diminish far more quickly than the Ukrainians'.

 

At this point, I would still bet on continuing to arm the Ukrainians as the best course ...

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Cory1848 said:

Well, I think Ukrainian capacity versus Russia is greater than the Finns’ versus the USSR. The Ukrainians HAVE managed to push the Russians out of large chunks of territory (around Kharkiv and Kherson, and away from Kiev), although the current offensive seems to be very slow. Some news sources say they’re making progress; others not so much. On demographics, for sure the Ukrainians have fewer people to fight, but I don’t think their casualty figures are as high as the Russians’. And the Russian will to fight will diminish far more quickly than the Ukrainians'.

 

At this point, I would still bet on continuing to arm the Ukrainians as the best course ...

How much more tax do YOU want to pay to continue arming the Ukrainians. Someone has to pay and it's not the Ukrainians.

[thaibeachlovers]

 

From this forum. Doesn't look good for continued support at the same level.

 

McCarthy vows to strip Ukraine money from Pentagon bill after Greene ‘no’ vote

By Social Media, 2 hours ago

 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced Friday that he will strip funding for Ukraine out of a Pentagon spending bill

[Cory1848]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ask the French that.

Touché. But Marshal Pétain is widely regarded as a traitor and his Vichy government a disgrace. The surname of his Norwegian equivalent, Vidkun Quisling, has entered the English language as a word meaning “a traitorous national who aids the invader of his country.” These are hardly models to emulate.

[Cory1848]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How much more tax do YOU want to pay to continue arming the Ukrainians. Someone has to pay and it's not the Ukrainians.

I pay taxes in the US; I am happy to pay taxes to arm the Ukrainians and will vote for people who promise to continue arming the Ukrainians using my tax dollars. Tens of millions of Americans feel the same.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

Touché. But Marshal Pétain is widely regarded as a traitor and his Vichy government a disgrace. The surname of his Norwegian equivalent, Vidkun Quisling, has entered the English language as a word meaning “a traitorous national who aids the invader of his country.” These are hardly models to emulate.

Perhaps from the safety of years and years after, but perhaps he did the only thing to prevent massive death and destruction of France, as we are seeing in Ukraine.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Cory1848 said:

I pay taxes in the US; I am happy to pay taxes to arm the Ukrainians and will vote for people who promise to continue arming the Ukrainians using my tax dollars. Tens of millions of Americans feel the same.

I didn't ask if you were happy paying tax, I asked how much MORE you would be prepared to pay.

You do realise that the US has an astronomical debt of trillions that people's grandchildren will likely be paying interest on, don't you?

[Cory1848]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps from the safety of years and years after, but perhaps he did the only thing to prevent massive death and destruction of France, as we are seeing in Ukraine.

Some things are worth fighting for. I guess we have a difference of opinion on that.

[Cory1848]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I didn't ask if you were happy paying tax, I asked how much MORE you would be prepared to pay.

You do realise that the US has an astronomical debt of trillions that people's grandchildren will likely be paying interest on, don't you?

Oh good heavens, I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you. You're doing nothing but deflecting.

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How much more tax do YOU want to pay to continue arming the Ukrainians. Someone has to pay and it's not the Ukrainians.

I'm willing to have more of my taxes going to arm Ukraine/disarm Russia.

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

From this forum. Doesn't look good for continued support at the same level.

 

McCarthy vows to strip Ukraine money from Pentagon bill after Greene ‘no’ vote

By Social Media, 2 hours ago

 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced Friday that he will strip funding for Ukraine out of a Pentagon spending bill

The majority of Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate support funding Ukraine.  McCarthy is letting a few right-wingnuts dictate policy to him.  Funding will continue after the nutjobs are ignored or distracted.

[rudi49jr]

18 hours ago, Thorgal said:

exactly, after the Ukrainian neo-nazis were defeated and/or fled the region it's obvious that the Russians took control to start elections.

You mean nazis like this one? There are way more nazis in Russia than there are in Ukraine. If you think otherwise, maybe you should do some research.

 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ask the French that.

No.

 

As in most countries, you would have to ask the government in power at the time, and the people who opposed the enemy at the time.

 

Many French troops (more of whom were evacuated from Dunkirk than British troops) at the time would disagree with you. So would millions of French men, women and children who either joined or assisted the French Resistance, not to forget all the free French forces.

[JCauto]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What on earth are you on about? Perhaps you could address the quotation given by Hanaguma without trying to denigrate the person who said it. That's a unwarranted deflection.

IMO it's entirely relevant given history of US supporting people that later become enemies.

Your libertarian concepts extend to policing other people's conversations? Bit odd if you ask me.

 

When someone raises a quotation of interest, describes the speaker as being "wise" and asks us to discuss, it is reasonable to ask "who said this and why should we pay attention to it?" as a first query when it isn't obvious whom we are talking about or that they're well known to be "wise" in society's view. If this had been said by Einstein or Bertie Russell, we'd already understand that it was a wise old head who had said it. I hadn't heard of this person (although of course it's quite a common name) before, and it seems he's not that widely known hence I wished to understand what makes his knowledge authoritative or worthy of interest. That is relevant to the conversation. Otherwise I could simply counterpoint by saying "a wise man said this" when it was in fact me who said it or my drinking buddies or anyone else under the sun.

Did I denigrate the person? Please point out to me where that was.

 

[JCauto]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Demographics are working against Ukraine. A possible related example would be Finland vs USSR in world war 2. The Finns put up a valiant resistance but in the end needed Germany to help them.

 

Ukraine is the same. They will simply run out of men faster than Russia. Particularly if they want to go on the offensive to recapture their lost territory.  For their faults, Russians are very tenacious and stubborn on the defensive, as Ukraine is finding out with this years failed spring campaign.  So no, they cannot regain what they had before the war unless NATO jumps in. And turning a regional conflict into a global one is a tragedy that need not happen. The risks are too great. 

 

Military aid is useless without troops to use it, troops who are trained to use it properly. No time to train, no time to ship everything they want. Best result will be a stalemate. 

Odd argument. The Finns fought the Russians in the Winter War in 1939 and then settled the dispute by ceding 9% of its territory in 1940 with limited assistance from any allies other than Estonian refugees and the Swedes. The Finns and Germans started cooperating before the Germans launched Operation Barbarossa to invade Russia, but this was primarily an offensive operation where the Finns were able to achieve their objectives to recover the territory they had lost and some additional land from Russia. The Finnish front was mostly quiet through June 1944, but then the Russian counter-offensive was able to recover the land and an armistice was eventually settled in September 1944 on the 1940 lines that became the final territorial boundaries. This was not what Finland wanted, but was a compromise that enabled them to continue their independent existence.

So the Finns were able to maintain their territory (although with the significant loss of Karelia) by fighting for it with some material and economic support from allies, but the fighting was done mostly by the Finns. They had to concede territory to maintain their independence from a hostile and much larger neighbour but were able to build leverage through their resistance that allowed them to maintain their identity and the vast majority of their territory when the war ended. This is also probably the likeliest result for Ukraine - an eventual agreement to settle on the pre-war lines where Russia keeps the Crimean peninsula.
 

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How much more tax do YOU want to pay to continue arming the Ukrainians. Someone has to pay and it's not the Ukrainians.

Do you remember Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain? Which one is your role role model?

[rudi49jr]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How much more tax do YOU want to pay to continue arming the Ukrainians. Someone has to pay and it's not the Ukrainians.

I find it rather harsh, not to mention callous, that you say that someone has to pay and it’s not the Ukrainians. Aren’t they paying with their lives? Aren’t they paying by being invaded by a cruel aggressor and having to suffer through the horrors of that every day? Aren’t they paying by being bombed, having to fear for their lives every day? I could go on, but I think you catch my drift. 
Maybe you should think a little before you make ignorant remarks like this next time.

[impulse]

5 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

Well, I think Ukrainian capacity versus Russia is greater than the Finns’ versus the USSR. The Ukrainians HAVE managed to push the Russians out of large chunks of territory (around Kharkiv and Kherson, and away from Kiev),

Putin never wanted Kiev, Karkiv, or Kherson.

 

He went after Kiev and Karkiv in an attempt to scare Zelensky into fleeing to one of his many ill gotten mansions around the world.  Kherson is on the wrong side of the Dnieper.

 

Have a look at CNN's map(s)  Lots of pink and very little blue in the 4 oblasts that Putin promised to "liberate".  That's pretty much what Putin has.  He's stated that's all he wants, so is it any surprise they're not expanding west?

 

Ukraine isn't getting Russia out of that pink area without NATO boots on the ground, and that means dead Brits, dead Germans, dead Americans and probably WW3.  They just don't have enough soldiers, no matter how much money the west throws at them.  (sans Poland, because they're done...) 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/09/world/ukraine-war-counteroffensive-maps-guide-dg/

 

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2023/08/06/Kremlin-says-it-only-wants-Ukrainian-territories-included-in-Russian-constitution

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Putin never wanted Kiev, Karkiv, or Kherson.

 

He went after Kiev and Karkiv in an attempt to scare Zelensky into fleeing to one of his many ill gotten mansions around the world.  Kherson is on the wrong side of the Dnieper.

 

Have a look at CNN's map(s)  Lots of pink and very little blue in the 4 oblasts that Putin promised to "liberate".  That's pretty much what Putin has.  He's stated that's all he wants, so is it any surprise they're not expanding west?

 

Ukraine isn't getting Russia out of that pink area without NATO boots on the ground, and that means dead Brits, dead Germans, dead Americans and probably WW3.  They just don't have enough soldiers, no matter how much money the west throws at them.  (sans Poland, because they're done...) 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/09/world/ukraine-war-counteroffensive-maps-guide-dg/

 

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2023/08/06/Kremlin-says-it-only-wants-Ukrainian-territories-included-in-Russian-constitution

"Putin never wanted Kiev, Karkiv, or Kherson."

 

Putin sacrificed too many of his best men and equipment for the attack on Kiev to be a scare tactic.  He mistakenly thought he would win a quick and easy victory.  He was wrong.

 

NATO troops aren't necessary.  The Ukrainians are fighting for their home and country, the Russians are fighting because they are told to.  All Ukraine has to do is survive and put constant pressure on the Russian invaders.  All the west has to do is provide the resources for Ukraine to do this.

 

 

[Hanaguma]

3 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

I find it rather harsh, not to mention callous, that you say that someone has to pay and it’s not the Ukrainians. Aren’t they paying with their lives? Aren’t they paying by being invaded by a cruel aggressor and having to suffer through the horrors of that every day? Aren’t they paying by being bombed, having to fear for their lives every day? I could go on, but I think you catch my drift. 
Maybe you should think a little before you make ignorant remarks like this next time.

It isnt ignorant at all. The money to fight has to come from somewhere, which means the pockets of taxpayers in the US and other countries. Money that could otherwise be spent within those countries to help their own citizens (Maui wildfire rebuilding etc). 

The war has largely stalemated. The Russians are dug in and will be hard to dislodge without significant manpower help from NATO, which means expanding the war.  You willing to trade London or Berlin or Paris for Kiev? Or the Donetsk?  I'm not. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Putin never wanted Kiev, Karkiv, or Kherson.

 

He went after Kiev and Karkiv in an attempt to scare Zelensky into fleeing to one of his many ill gotten mansions around the world.  Kherson is on the wrong side of the Dnieper.

 

Have a look at CNN's map(s)  Lots of pink and very little blue in the 4 oblasts that Putin promised to "liberate".  That's pretty much what Putin has.  He's stated that's all he wants, so is it any surprise they're not expanding west?

 

Ukraine isn't getting Russia out of that pink area without NATO boots on the ground, and that means dead Brits, dead Germans, dead Americans and probably WW3.  They just don't have enough soldiers, no matter how much money the west throws at them.  (sans Poland, because they're done...) 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/09/world/ukraine-war-counteroffensive-maps-guide-dg/

 

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2023/08/06/Kremlin-says-it-only-wants-Ukrainian-territories-included-in-Russian-constitution

 

 

Please share with us the evidence that Zelensky "has many ill gotten mansions around the world."

As for the rest of the nonsense you posted, I particularly enjoyed the alarabiya.net link. Russia held referendums for accession to Russia in occupied territory to see what the captive populations wanted. When, surprise, surprise, the vote, tallied by the scrupulously honest Russians, showed overwhelming support for unification with Russia, the Russians signed a treaty incorporating those territories.

As for that territory being all that Putin says he wants, ever hear the phrase putting lipstick on a pig? I guess you don't' recall how early in the war Putin said the goal was to depose the Nazis who were running the country. And I suppose you're unfamiliar with the claims backed by him that Ukraine doesn't have a culture that is distinct from Russia's.

[Tug]

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

It isnt ignorant at all. The money to fight has to come from somewhere, which means the pockets of taxpayers in the US and other countries. Money that could otherwise be spent within those countries to help their own citizens (Maui wildfire rebuilding etc). 

The war has largely stalemated. The Russians are dug in and will be hard to dislodge without significant manpower help from NATO, which means expanding the war.  You willing to trade London or Berlin or Paris for Kiev? Or the Donetsk?  I'm not. 

Yup that money or the Maui Cunard ,taxes lol just slightly less than 6% of our defense budget to utterly stop in its tracks humiliate destroy bankrupt expose our largest enemy all without spilling American blood .in support of a country fighting for its life against an invader that used the same almost verbatim excuse hitler used .hummm………. But wait there’s more the renewal of nato with new high quality members the business and employment of a workforce in renewing stockpiles of munitions looks like a pretty good deal to me!as far as theLondon or Berlin or New York City for that matter Cunard how’s about Moscow or any other large city in Russia im sorry but I don’t think the majority of folks want to appease a viscous criminal like putin 

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Yup that money or the Maui Cunard ,taxes lol just slightly less than 6% of our defense budget to utterly stop in its tracks humiliate destroy bankrupt expose our largest enemy all without spilling American blood .in support of a country fighting for its life against an invader that used the same almost verbatim excuse hitler used .hummm………. But wait there’s more the renewal of nato with new high quality members the business and employment of a workforce in renewing stockpiles of munitions looks like a pretty good deal to me!as far as theLondon or Berlin or New York City for that matter Cunard how’s about Moscow or any other large city in Russia im sorry but I don’t think the majority of folks want to appease a viscous criminal like putin 

As of now, the US has spent $1,000 per household on the Ukraine war.  I think most people would rather have that money in their pockets, use it to buy food for their kids, pay the inflated prices to put gas in their cars, etc.  

 

NATO doesn't need to be renewed. It lost its purpose once the USSR and Warsaw Pact dissolved. Europe has more than enough money to defend itself without relying on Uncle Sugar. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

As of now, the US has spent $1,000 per household on the Ukraine war.  I think most people would rather have that money in their pockets, use it to buy food for their kids, pay the inflated prices to put gas in their cars, etc.  

 

NATO doesn't need to be renewed. It lost its purpose once the USSR and Warsaw Pact dissolved. Europe has more than enough money to defend itself without relying on Uncle Sugar. 

Russia has clearly demonstrated that the threat to the west didn't go away with the dissolution of the USSR, which Putin wants to recreate.

 

Europe's most cost-effective means of defending itself is to acquire lots of nukes.  Apparently you don't see nuclear proliferation as a big.  Better informed people think otherwise.

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

As of now, the US has spent $1,000 per household on the Ukraine war.  I think most people would rather have that money in their pockets, use it to buy food for their kids, pay the inflated prices to put gas in their cars, etc.  

 

NATO doesn't need to be renewed. It lost its purpose once the USSR and Warsaw Pact dissolved. Europe has more than enough money to defend itself without relying on Uncle Sugar. 

Nato doesn’t need to be renewed?in light of what putin has wrought are you kidding?just wow!what an incredible thing to say.that is ,unless a person is an enemy of democracy and sovereignty just boggles my mind……….

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

Nato doesn’t need to be renewed?in light of what putin has wrought are you kidding?just wow!what an incredible thing to say.that is ,unless a person is an enemy of democracy and sovereignty just boggles my mind……….

or just plain enemy of the US.