White House warns Ukraine aid is running out

[CharlieH]

 

In letter to Congress, White House urges lawmakers to support Ukraine

White House Office of Management and Budget director Shalanda Young said the U.S. will run out of approved money for Ukraine at the end of the year.     Young said it was urgent that Congress act on President Biden’s $61 billion request to support Ukraine.   “We are out of money to support Ukraine in this fight,” Young wrote, warning a failure to pass aid soon would “kneecap” the embattled country on the battlefield.   Congress has failed to pass a bill for Ukraine all year, largely because the GOP-controlled House has struggled to muster enough support for Kyiv.   More conservative House Republicans have expressed skepticism about Ukraine, which is now approaching two years of its fight with Russia.   Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has expressed support for Ukraine but tied any legislation approving new aid with GOP border security efforts.   Johnson on Monday accused the White House of failing to answer Republicans’ concerns on Ukraine.   “The Biden Administration has failed to substantively address any of my conference’s legitimate concerns about the lack of a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict, or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by American taxpayers,” he wrote on X.   The Ukraine request is part of Biden’s $106 billion ask to also support Israel, the border and the Indo-Pacific region.   The president requested Congress act in October, shortly after the Israel-Hamas war broke out.   FULL STORY

[thaibeachlovers]

No money, the war ends, countless lives saved, infrastructure not destroyed. All round good result, except for Zelensky and his cronies, oh and the 1% that won't be profiting from weapon sales any more. However, no doubt they'll be benefiting from western taxes to "rebuild" Ukraine, :-(

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No money, the war ends, countless lives saved, infrastructure not destroyed. All round good result, except for Zelensky and his cronies, oh and the 1% that won't be profiting from weapon sales any more. However, no doubt they'll be benefiting from western taxes to "rebuild" Ukraine, :-(

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Peace For Our Time, Says Poster.

[ballpoint]

"The people of England will curse themselves for having preferred ruin from Churchill to peace from Hitler."

 

William Joyce, broadcasting August 2, 1940, as Lord Haw Haw.

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, ballpoint said:

"The people of England will curse themselves for having preferred ruin from Churchill to peace from Hitler."

 

William Joyce, broadcasting August 2, 1940, as Lord Haw Haw.

 

 

The republican recipients of Russian donations are winning.

[RayC]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No money, the war ends, countless lives saved, infrastructure not destroyed. All round good result, except for Zelensky and his cronies, oh and the 1% that won't be profiting from weapon sales any more. However, no doubt they'll be benefiting from western taxes to "rebuild" Ukraine, :-(

 

Putin's cheerleader is in full flow today.

 

Yep, an "all round good result" if you think that rewarding an aggressor, eradicating a nation and increasing the tension on an entire continent is something to cheer about.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, ballpoint said:

"The people of England will curse themselves for having preferred ruin from Churchill to peace from Hitler."

 

William Joyce, broadcasting August 2, 1940, as Lord Haw Haw.

 

 

So are you suggesting that the UK (and Europe as a whole) would have been better off if Hitler had been victorious?

[ballpoint]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

So are you suggesting that the UK (and Europe as a whole) would have been better off if Hitler had been victorious?

I'm not.  Some are.

 

Compare my quote with the post immediately following the OP.  Different war, different quislings, same propaganda.

I'm just pointing out the similarity between them.

[beautifulthailand99]

Abu Dhabi has just laid out the red carpet including a flypast with Western jets to welcome Putin to the Kingdom.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/06/putin-makes-rare-visit-to-the-uae-saudi-arabia-to-talk-relations.html

 

 

[sirineou]

There is a reason why we don't hear much about Ukraine in the news anymore. 

Don't be surprised if  Zelensky is out in the next few months .

The war can be best described as a stalemate. Ukraine cant win a war of attrition with Russia  , and the US after having led them into this will hang them out to dry. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, ballpoint said:

I'm not.  Some are.

 

Compare my quote with the post immediately following the OP.  Different war, different quislings, same propaganda.

I'm just pointing out the similarity between them.

Go on, name me so I can report you. Pathetic.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Abu Dhabi has just laid out the red carpet including a flypast with Western jets to welcome Putin to the Kingdom.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/06/putin-makes-rare-visit-to-the-uae-saudi-arabia-to-talk-relations.html

 

 

I can just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the White House. They thought they had allies in the UAE, 5555555555555.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

There is a reason why we don't hear much about Ukraine in the news anymore. 

Don't be surprised if  Zelensky is out in the next few months .

The war can be best described as a stalemate. Ukraine cant win a war of attrition with Russia  , and the US after having led them into this will hang them out to dry. 

 

As the US has been doing for a while now, at least since Vietnam.

[heybruce]

On 12/6/2023 at 7:15 AM, sirineou said:

There is a reason why we don't hear much about Ukraine in the news anymore. 

Don't be surprised if  Zelensky is out in the next few months .

The war can be best described as a stalemate. Ukraine cant win a war of attrition with Russia  , and the US after having led them into this will hang them out to dry. 

 

"the US after having led them into this"

 

Some people refuse to acknowledge what everyone else knows:  Putin started the war!

[Jingthing]

On 12/6/2023 at 7:15 PM, sirineou said:

There is a reason why we don't hear much about Ukraine in the news anymore. 

Don't be surprised if  Zelensky is out in the next few months .

The war can be best described as a stalemate. Ukraine cant win a war of attrition with Russia  , and the US after having led them into this will hang them out to dry. 

 

No!

Washington offered Zelinsky to go into exile. The Ukrainians led this. The US infected by a minority of vile Putin loving isolationist republican extremists that weirdly have seized much more power than the people they represent are on the verge of gifting Putin a victory. In any case if Ukraine makes it to the US elections, then there is great hope that Trump will lose. 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Washington offered Zelinsky to go into exile.

evacuate is not exile. The exile part will come when the Uranian people throw him out.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

The Ukrainians led this.

I am not sure what "this " is.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

The US infected by a minority of vile Putin loving isolationist republican extremists that weirdly have seized much more power than the people they represent are on the verge of gifting Putin a victory.

Many strong a subjective words here, 

"Infected?  couldn't the other side of the argument   against those who oppose them ? It is a useless and subjective statement. 

"Vile"? is what happen to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people who were sacrificed in the altar of american imperialism. 

"Isolationist" ? Not leading a country to its demise for mercenary aspirations is not isolationist,  is at the very least reasonable and at the   most compassionate, though I suspect the Republicans (AKA anti-democrats) are not opposed to it out of compassion, and the Democrats (AKA anti-republicand) are not supporting intervention for altruistic reasons. Either of them would be against what the others are for, regardless of what.  They are both a macabre joke . 

" weirdly "nothing weird  about that, congress acting against the will of the people that elected them is the norm. But the will of the people is not to be trusted. The will of the people could, and is manipulated. 

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

gifting Putin a victory

No one is gifting Russia  , the US propaganda mechanism, has painted this as "Putin's" war.  Are there some people in Russia who oppose this? There alway people in every country that opposed anything. 

But this is not "Putin's war. this is Russia's war in an attempt to maintain Superpower status, as is Americas attempt to maintain Unipolar hegemony. ot at the very least , by taking out  Russia , prevent a multipolar world and limit it to a more predictable Bipolar situation with China. 

Are you familiar with the "three body problem" ? if you are not familiar I suggest you google it. It affects orbits in the most unpredictable ways.  The three body problem is one of the biggest contributor to entropy. (disorderliness)  Don't think that all of the above have not been gamed out.

 

Quote by US Ambassador to Russia and later CIA director Burns from a letter to : " “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Burns wrote, “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” Burns added that it was “hard to overstate the strategic consequences” of offering Ukraine NATO membership, which, he predicted, would “create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” " 

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

In any case if Ukraine makes it to the US elections, then there is great hope that Trump will lose. 

 Will not change nothing, ot at least very lisle. What has happened in the Ukraine was inevitable. 

    If a train is traveling at sixty mph. and sixty miles away there is a bridge out, unless there is an intervention, the train will crash in an hour. 

What is happening in Ukraine I have been saying  and taking flack , for two years now, and I am not the sharpest knife in the draw. Many leading voices were advocating the same. Some were called "Linguists" . It does not take a lot of brains to figure this , all the evidence are in plain sight. It just takes objective thinking, something that seems to be in very short supply. 

  I don't begrudge those who supported the war in Ukraine their intensions were noble, and compassionate.

But you know what they say about all the best intentions? 

 

Please excuse any typos, no time to pruff read this, got to go and do some real work. 

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

evacuate is not exile. The exile part will come when the Uranian people throw him out.

I am not sure what "this " is.

Many strong a subjective words here, 

"Infected?  couldn't the other side of the argument   against those who oppose them ? It is a useless and subjective statement. 

"Vile"? is what happen to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people who were sacrificed in the altar of american imperialism. 

"Isolationist" ? Not leading a country to its demise for mercenary aspirations is not isolationist,  is at the very least reasonable and at the   most compassionate, though I suspect the Republicans (AKA anti-democrats) are not opposed to it out of compassion, and the Democrats (AKA anti-republicand) are not supporting intervention for altruistic reasons. Either of them would be against what the others are for, regardless of what.  They are both a macabre joke . 

" weirdly "nothing weird  about that, congress acting against the will of the people that elected them is the norm. But the will of the people is not to be trusted. The will of the people could, and is manipulated. 

No one is gifting Russia  , the US propaganda mechanism, has painted this as "Putin's" war.  Are there some people in Russia who oppose this? There alway people in every country that opposed anything. 

But this is not "Putin's war. this is Russia's war in an attempt to maintain Superpower status, as is Americas attempt to maintain Unipolar hegemony. ot at the very least , by taking out  Russia , prevent a multipolar world and limit it to a more predictable Bipolar situation with China. 

Are you familiar with the "three body problem" ? if you are not familiar I suggest you google it. It affects orbits in the most unpredictable ways.  The three body problem is one of the biggest contributor to entropy. (disorderliness)  Don't think that all of the above have not been gamed out.

 

Quote by US Ambassador to Russia and later CIA director Burns from a letter to : " “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Burns wrote, “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” Burns added that it was “hard to overstate the strategic consequences” of offering Ukraine NATO membership, which, he predicted, would “create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” " 

 Will not change nothing, ot at least very lisle. What has happened in the Ukraine was inevitable. 

    If a train is traveling at sixty mph. and sixty miles away there is a bridge out, unless there is an intervention, the train will crash in an hour. 

What is happening in Ukraine I have been saying  and taking flack , for two years now, and I am not the sharpest knife in the draw. Many leading voices were advocating the same. Some were called "Linguists" . It does not take a lot of brains to figure this , all the evidence are in plain sight. It just takes objective thinking, something that seems to be in very short supply. 

  I don't begrudge those who supported the war in Ukraine their intensions were noble, and compassionate.

But you know what they say about all the best intentions? 

 

Please excuse any typos, no time to pruff read this, got to go and do some real work. 

 

 

Are you saying that the justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that it is a reaction to (1) The US hegemony in Europe and (2) Ukraine's application to join NATO? If so, then imo neither has much validity.

 

The US has been, and remains, an important ally in Europe but its' influence is waning: European states increasingly look to Brussels, rather than Washington, for guidance especially since the large increase in EU membership in the 2000s. 

 

Ukraine was not going to become a NATO member anytime soon prior to the Russian invasion.

[sirineou]

40 minutes ago, RayC said:

Are you saying that the justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that it is a reaction to (1) The US hegemony in Europe and (2) Ukraine's application to join NATO? If so, then imo neither has much validity.

First of all not justification! that is a very loaded word, I like the word "Reasons". 

I make no judgment calls, I don't know enough for the "justifications",  i suspect historians will be arguing about that for years to come, 

 And not only me saying it . Everyone who knows anything about this issue. But not hegemony in Europe, Hegemony in the world. is That's what unipolar hegemony means. If not unipolar, at least not Multipolar , by taking out the third  weaker player. 

44 minutes ago, RayC said:

The US has been, and remains, an important ally in Europe but its' influence is waning: European states increasingly look to Brussels, rather than Washington, for guidance especially since the large increase in EU membership in the 2000s. 

Yea, so? more reason for the US to try create a danger and then sell insurance against it.

45 minutes ago, RayC said:

Ukraine was not going to become a NATO member anytime soon prior to the Russian invasion.

By the time the Russians invaded , NATO was so far up Ukrain's ass it could not see sunlight. 

Nato was training Ukrainian soldiers. conducting joint exercises, and providing equipment and weapons. 

Wouldn't you agree that If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck? 

Do you think the Russians are stupid? don't you think they could see what an expat  like me ,who lives on the ass end of Thailand can see?

So it was not formally a member !  

And now will never be, At least not all of it. 

[RayC]

53 minutes ago, sirineou said:

First of all not justification! that is a very loaded word, I like the word "Reasons". 

I make no judgment calls, I don't know enough for the "justifications",  i suspect historians will be arguing about that for years to come, 

 And not only me saying it . Everyone who knows anything about this issue. But not hegemony in Europe, Hegemony in the world. is That's what unipolar hegemony means. If not unipolar, at least not Multipolar , by taking out the third  weaker player. 

 

So to be absolutely clear that I understand you correctly. You are saying that one (the only?) reason for the Russian invasion of Ukraine is to counter the US-led unipolar hegemonic order?

 

If so, it is definitely not true that "everyone who knows anything about this issue" shares this view.

 

53 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yea, so? more reason for the US to try create a danger and then sell insurance against it.

 

Again, to be clear. What are you saying? That the EU is a danger or an insurance policy (or both?) created by the US to protect its' hegemony?  

 

53 minutes ago, sirineou said:

By the time the Russians invaded , NATO was so far up Ukrain's ass it could not see sunlight. 

Nato was training Ukrainian soldiers. conducting joint exercises, and providing equipment and weapons. 

 

Not as far, or as well inserted, as it might, or should have been, according to some sources

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/09/ukraine-military-2014-russia-us-training/

 

53 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Wouldn't you agree that If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck? 

 

I would but this line of reasoning does not apply here.

 

53 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Do you think the Russians are stupid? don't you think they could see what an expat  like me ,who lives on the ass end of Thailand can see?

 

I don't think that the Russian leadership is stupid, but neither do I think that they had any just cause to invade Ukraine.

 

By your own admission, you don't know enough "for the 'justifications'", and imo your perception of events is flawed.

 

53 minutes ago, sirineou said:

So it was not formally a member !  

And now will never be, At least not all of it. 

 

You seem to seem to think that the potential break-up of Ukraine is a cause for celebration. (In any event, this is presumptive).

[sirineou]

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

So to be absolutely clear that I understand you correctly. You are saying that one (the only?) reason for the Russian invasion of Ukraine is to counter the US-led unipolar hegemonic order?

 

If so, it is definitely not true that "everyone who knows anything about this issue" shares this view.

No !!you don't understand correctly. I am not being disrespectful towards you when I say that there is so much that you don't know about this issue.  And how could you? the western media will never tell you.

Have you ever heard any of what I am telling telling you in this exchange we are having from the western media? Why is that? does it make you wonder what else they are not telling you?   

Russia invaded Ukraine  to keep it neutral. 

With a neutral Ukraine, any invasion  against Russia would need to come through the  The Suwalki Corridor. This not opinion, this is fact.  

it is a corridor between Russian Kaliningrad  and pro russian Belarus , it is 65 km wide.  and a lot easier to defend than having having a NATO Ukraine , which would open another 2,295.04 km front 

again these are indisputable facts. 

In addition Sevastopol in Crimea is the only true major warm-water port for Russia, which means that it doesn't freeze during the winter  

It was the  US that  used Ukraine as a way weaken Russia and  id Ukraine was successful take out Russia as great power player. 

I could write a book about this. 

Please don't take my word about any of that. Google and fact check every single thing I told you. 

 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

By your own admission, you don't know enough "for the 'justifications'", and imo your perception of events is flawed.

Ok .. Perhapse.

Which ones? and how? 

[RayC]

41 minutes ago, sirineou said:

No !!you don't understand correctly. I am not being disrespectful towards you when I say that there is so much that you don't know about this issue.  And how could you? the western media will never tell you.

Have you ever heard any of what I am telling telling you in this exchange we are having from the western media? Why is that? does it make you wonder what else they are not telling you?   

Russia invaded Ukraine  to keep it neutral. 

With a neutral Ukraine, any invasion  against Russia would need to come through the  The Suwalki Corridor. This not opinion, this is fact.  

it is a corridor between Russian Kaliningrad  and pro russian Belarus , it is 65 km wide.  and a lot easier to defend than having having a NATO Ukraine , which would open another 2,295.04 km front 

again these are indisputable facts. 

In addition Sevastopol in Crimea is the only true major warm-water port for Russia, which means that it doesn't freeze during the winter  

It was the  US that  used Ukraine as a way weaken Russia and  id Ukraine was successful take out Russia as great power player. 

I could write a book about this. 

Please don't take my word about any of that. Google and fact check every single thing I told you. 

 

 

Do media outlets have bias? Of course they do? Are editors selective in what they choose to publish? Again, no doubt. However, the absence of certain stories from the Western media doesn't mean that they are true. They might not be published because there is no substance to them.

 

Russia (excluding Kaliningrad) shares land borders with Estonia, Finland and Latvia. I'm no military strategist and can't claim any knowledge of the terrain in this region but, in the extremely unlikely event that NATO chose to invade Russia, why couldn't it launch an attack via this area?

 

I'm not being disrespectful when I suggest that this all sounds like a conspiracy theory without any substance to me.

[RayC]

24 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Ok .. Perhapse.

Which ones? and how? 

 

The bit about the reason for the invasion being due to a US-led unipolar hegemonic order 

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Do media outlets have bias? Of course they do? Are editors selective in what they choose to publish? Again, no doubt. However, the absence of certain stories from the Western media doesn't mean that they are true. They might not be published because there is no substance to them.

Posible, though IMO not probable. 

Did you have a chance to fact check anything I said?  Perhaps my information is wrong

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The bit about the reason for the invasion being due to a US-led unipolar hegemonic order 

Ok,

How?

[RayC]

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Posible, though IMO not probable. 

Did you have a chance to fact check anything I said?  Perhaps my information is wrong

 

I didn't because your contention that, "With a neutral Ukraine, any invasion against Russia would need to come through the The Suwalki Corridor. This not opinion, this is fact." is incorrect.

 

Unless you supply evidence to suggest that any hypothetical NATO attack could not come via Estonia, Finland or Latvia I don't see what there is discuss on this point.

[RayC]

16 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Ok,

How?

 

That's what I'm asking you to explain! Isn't that what you are claiming?

[Jingthing]

It's not over yet.

 

 

[sirineou]

53 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

That's what I'm asking you to explain! Isn't that what you are claiming?

No I thought I explained it

The US and Russia have different reasons for why they act as they do.

Russia's invaded Ukraine,

I hope we can agree on that!!

I explained why Russia invaded Ukraine, I even posted a map for you.  Do you have any problems with any of my explanations if so which? and why?

The US has its own reasons for forcing Russia to invade Ukraine.

I thought I explained those reasons also . If you disagree with any of them , please quote them and tell me why you think I was wrong. 

I would be more than happy to learn a new thing, and would be thankful for helping me not be wrong anymore. 

I mean who want to be wrong?

I would think no one,!!  though I am not so sure.

I think many people are more concerned with not being proven wrong , than actually learning a new thing  and not being wrong anymore, so they engage in all sorts if intelectual gyrations and gymnastics. I see it in this forum constantly. Which is why for the most part I stay away from these type of conversations, and why my ignore list is growing exponentially.  It is not that the people in my ignore list are bad people or that I don't like them, but simply because they have proved themselves to to not have an open mind, and having a conversation with them is a waste of both our times. 

 

[RayC]

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

The US and Russia have different reasons for why they act as they do.

Russia's invaded Ukraine,

I hope we can agree on that!!

 

We can agree on both these points

 

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I explained why Russia invaded Ukraine,

 

You offered a premise based around a theory about a US-led unipolar hegemony. You have not offered any evidence, other than another a disproved contention about Russia cutting off the only possible route for a hypothetical NATO invasion, to support your premise.

 

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

I even posted a map for you.  Do you have any problems with any of my explanations if so which? and why?

 

See above and also my first two replies to you. You have not answered the questions which I raised.

 

The map is superfluous.

 

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The US has its own reasons for forcing Russia to invade Ukraine.

 

You state this as if it were an a priori truth. It is not.

 

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I thought I explained those reasons also . If you disagree with any of them , please quote them and tell me why you think I was wrong.

 

I cannot explain why I disagree with you because I do not think that you have explained your theory adequately (apologies if that sounds rude).

 

This again relates to my original questions. I do not understand your answers: Why and how, did US hegemony 'force' Russia to invade Ukraine? Simply stating that Russia invaded Ukraine to keep it neutral is not proof. It is just another contention that requires proof. In any event, it certainly isn't a moral justification (reason) for invading Russia.

 

I also countered by suggesting that, although the US remains important in Europe, its' influence is decreasing and that the EU is becoming increasingly important: I think that that you have suggested that the EU is being used by the US? My interpretation of your view of the EU/US relationship may well be completely incorrect as, again, I have been unable to understand your explanation.

 

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I would be more than happy to learn a new thing, and would be thankful for helping me not be wrong anymore. 

I mean who want to be wrong?

I would think no one,!!  though I am not so sure.

I think many people are more concerned with not being proven wrong , than actually learning a new thing  and not being wrong anymore, so they engage in all sorts if intelectual gyrations and gymnastics. I see it in this forum constantly. Which is why for the most part I stay away from these type of conversations, and why my ignore list is growing exponentially.  It is not that the people in my ignore list are bad people or that I don't like them, but simply because they have proved themselves to to not have an open mind, and having a conversation with them is a waste of both our times. 

 

 

I have already learnt a new phrase 'unipolar theory', so that's something.

 

I am quite prepared to accept that I am wrong but, in order to do so, I firstly have to understand what, why and how your theory is correct. At the moment, I don't understand any of those three things.