Please contact Speaker Mike Johnson's office and ask him to pass support package for Ukraine.

[ButtersHawk]

I don't.

I guess we will just keep throwing bodies and money at it for the next decade.

One of my favorite things about this is for some reason you are considered pure evil by some on this board for.....
#1 You want people on both sides to stop dying and want at least an ATTEMPT at peace negotiations
#2 You would like a written or stated end goal on the conflict before more $$$ gets poured into it.

Pure comedy.

 

[globalhawk]

One of my favorite things about this is for some reason you are considered pure evil by some on this board for.....
#1 You want people on both sides to stop dying and want at least an ATTEMPT at peace negotiations
#2 You would like a written or stated end goal on the conflict before more $$$ gets poured into it.

Pure comedy.

Oh Butters. You want Ukraine to cede land to a Russian aggressor? I believe Ukraine has already stated that is a no go. The only other option is Russia loses or wins. Which do you prefer?

 

[seminole97]

Oh Butters. You want Ukraine to cede land to a Russian aggressor? I believe Ukraine has already stated that is a no go. The only other option is Russia loses or wins. Which do you prefer?

Does anyone want to bet this doesn’t end with Ukraine ceding land?

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

You are, wife beater.

All of MAGA is.

Most of the GOP is.

You guys are just too stupid to realize Russian propaganda and kompromat have been running the GOP since 2017.

You are a low grade propagandist.

 

[globalhawk]

Does anyone want to bet this doesn’t end with Ukraine ceding land?

How would it end if a peace treaty were negotiated now? You honestly believe Putin would give land back to Ukraine. Joke.

 

[Randon]

Trump has said repeatedly that he can end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Can the pro Trumpers here please provide details on how he proposes to do this.

 

[seminole97]

How would it end if a peace treaty were negotiated now? You honestly believe Putin would give land back to Ukraine.

Maybe you misread what I wrote.

Do you think that this war actually ends with Russia ceding Crimea?
I don't.

 

[TylerJ23]

But Russia bordering more NATO nations won't cost anymore of either? You don't live in reality.

Ok.

 

[TylerJ23]

One of my favorite things about this is for some reason you are considered pure evil by some on this board for.....
#1 You want people on both sides to stop dying and want at least an ATTEMPT at peace negotiations
#2 You would like a written or stated end goal on the conflict before more $$$ gets poured into it.

Pure comedy.

There is no end goal.

This will end with more than a million dead and billions spent.

Some are ok with that, I am not.

 

[globalhawk]

Maybe you misread what I wrote.

Do you think that this war actually ends with Russia ceding Crimea?
I don't.

I did read it wrong. How do you think this will end?

 

[seminole97]

Trump has said repeatedly that he can end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Can the pro Trumpers here please provide details on how he proposes to do this.

I suspect it starts with disavowing NATO expansion.

Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine’s ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.

The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky’s Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey.

Russia’s ultimate goal was to press Ukraine into neutrality, Arahamiya explained, adding that all other requests (like the elusive ‘de-nazification’) were essentially empty cosmetics, and neutrality would have been enough for Russia to agree to withdraw beyond the February 24th frontlines.

They [Russia] were ready to end the war if we took neutrality—as Finland once did—and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point.

 

[globalhawk]

Ok.

Why can't you answer a simple question. Do you believe that Russia taking over Ukraine will cost more lives and money than Ukraine defending themselves and pushing Russia out of their land? Peace negotiations are not going to work.

 

[globalhawk]

I suspect it starts with disavowing NATO expansion.

Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused partly because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight, David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine’s ruling party confirmed in a recent interview, published on Friday, November 24th.

The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky’s Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey.

Russia’s ultimate goal was to press Ukraine into neutrality, Arahamiya explained, adding that all other requests (like the elusive ‘de-nazification’) were essentially empty cosmetics, and neutrality would have been enough for Russia to agree to withdraw beyond the February 24th frontlines.

The European Conservative. A Hungarian publication. You are funny.

 

[jonesy5960]

The European Conservative. A Hungarian publication. You are funny.

Otherwise known as the Eastern European Autocratic Journal.

 

[dgordo]

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

Majority of this money ends up with Blackrock, which then funnels the money to the Dems…so I’ll pass. I prefer to make my own spending decisions, and not rely on the govt

LOL, more of this lunacy. So your brain is chock full of BS conspiracies with no verifiable evidence to support them. Awesome. You are dumb AF.

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

Ukraine is an easy pawn.

1. Nobody really cares if it falls.
2. The southern border is a much greater immediate threat to the US
3. The GOP knows that while the majority of America (even the majority of Republicans) wish to fund Ukraine, they know the political cost of not funding Ukraine is lower than the cost to Biden of not addressing the border.

Biden could all but sew up the election tomorrow by reinstating remain in Mexico, resuming the border wall project he halted when he took office (he wouldn't even need to add more), and signing the resulting deal to fund Ukraine/Israel. Simple formula, and no reasonable person would have a problem with any of that.

Wow a clean sweep of WRONG. Congratulations.

 

[thewop]

Wow a clean sweep of WRONG. Congratulations.

Actually I just said what everyone is thinking and nobody wants to say. Sure it's oversimplified but it's not even a little bit wrong.

 

[seminole97]

The European Conservative. A Hungarian publication. You are funny.

You're naïve.

Are you allowed to read the Kiev Post?

Russia Offered to End War in 2022 If Ukraine Scrapped NATO Ambitions – Zelensky Party Chief​

 

[globalhawk]

You're naïve.

Are you allowed to read the Kiev Post?

Russia Offered to End War in 2022 If Ukraine Scrapped NATO Ambitions – Zelensky Party Chief​

Did you read the article? You are an idiot.

 

[seminole97]

Did you read the article?

Yes, do you need someone to explain it to you?

David Arahamiya, leader of the President's “Servant of the People” party and head of the Ukrainian delegation during last year’s talks with Russia, has revealed that Russia proposed ending the war in spring 2022 on the condition that Ukraine abandon its NATO aspirations and adopt a neutral stance.

“They really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. It was the biggest thing for them,” Arahamiya said in an interview with Ukrainian journalist Natalia Moseychuk.

“They were ready to end the war if we took – as Finland once did – neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point,” he added.

 

[globalhawk]

Yes, do you need someone to explain it to you?

David Arahamiya, leader of the President's “Servant of the People” party and head of the Ukrainian delegation during last year’s talks with Russia, has revealed that Russia proposed ending the war in spring 2022 on the condition that Ukraine abandon its NATO aspirations and adopt a neutral stance.

“They really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. It was the biggest thing for them,” Arahamiya said in an interview with Ukrainian journalist Natalia Moseychuk.

“They were ready to end the war if we took – as Finland once did – neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point,” he added.

There wasn't even a tiniest amount of trust. Once again you are trying to spin the truth. Idiot. There is a reason you only copy and paste a section of articles. Feel free to read the complete article below:

David Arahamiya, leader of the President's “Servant of the People” party and head of the Ukrainian delegation during last year’s talks with Russia, has revealed that Russia proposed ending the war in spring 2022 on the condition that Ukraine abandon its NATO aspirations and adopt a neutral stance.

“They really hoped almost to the last that they would put the squeeze on us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality. It was the biggest thing for them,” Arahamiya said in an interview with Ukrainian journalist Natalia Moseychuk.

“They were ready to end the war if we took – as Finland once did – neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point,” he added.

Speaking further and explaining Kyiv's refusal to accept the proposal, Arakhamia said that it would require a constitutional change, given that Ukraine’s Constitution states its intention to become a NATO member.

"There is no, and there was no, trust in the Russians that they would do it. That could only be done if there were security guarantees."

Arahamiya clarified that signing such an agreement without guarantees would have left Ukraine vulnerable to a second incursion.

“They would have come in more prepared, because they came in, in fact, unprepared for such resistance,” Arakhamia said.

According to the lawmaker, while another round of talks was underway in Istanbul, Boris Johnson unexpectedly came to Kyiv on April 9 and said that Ukraine "shouldn't sign anything with them at all – and let's just fight."

But discussions were interrupted after Russian troops withdrew from Kyiv, revealing the extent of crimes committed, committed, notably the Bucha massacre.

Three days after Johnson's departure from Kyiv, Putin publicly stated that talks with Ukraine had “turned into a dead end.”

 

[Randon]

You're naïve.

Are you allowed to read the Kiev Post?

Russia Offered to End War in 2022 If Ukraine Scrapped NATO Ambitions – Zelensky Party Chief​

How ridiculous! Russia invades, unprovoked, the sovereign country of
Ukraine resulting in displacement of 8 million Ukranians, destroys trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure, kills thousands of innocent civilians, and illegally occupies thousands of square miles of eastern Ukraine taken by force. Does anyone with an ounce of rational thought think that Zelensky would ever accept a peace agreement allowing Russia to have the territory they've illegally taken in exchange for Ukraine scrapping their NATO ambitions?

 

[seminole97]

There is a reason you only copy and paste a section of articles. Feel free to read the complete article below:

So I should just default paste entire news articles in the future? Does that make sense for a cite?

I read this months ago, it seems like you're just learning about now.

According to the lawmaker, while another round of talks was underway in Istanbul, Boris Johnson unexpectedly came to Kyiv on April 9 and said that Ukraine "shouldn't sign anything with them at all – and let's just fight."

But discussions were interrupted after Russian troops withdrew from Kyiv, revealing the extent of crimes committed, committed, notably the Bucha massacre.

Three days after Johnson's departure from Kyiv, Putin publicly stated that talks with Ukraine had “turned into a dead end.”

Too bad you're not allowed to read wider sources, it makes spin easier to spot:

Furthermore, Aramahiya noted, such an agreement would have needed to modify the constitution first (since it contains the desire to join NATO). The third point was that Kyiv didn’t trust Moscow to hold up its end of the bargain and not invade again—especially not without international security guarantees.

Nonetheless, the timeline suggests that these issues might not have played as big of a role in the refusal as the British prime minister did, as both governments kept the talks open until early April. Russia repeatedly signaled a willingness to hammer out a peace deal, while Ukraine obviously remained interested because otherwise, it would’ve left the negotiation table.

Officially, Ukraine left the peace talks because of the discovery of the Bucha massacre after the Russian army withdrew from the Kyiv area. However, the bodies of the murdered civilians in Bucha were discovered on April 1st, while the talks continued until after Johnson’s surprise trip.

On April 12th, just three days after Johnson’s visit to the Ukrainian capital, Putin publicly declared the peace talks to be over, saying the negotiations “turned into a dead end.”

 

[seminole97]

How ridiculous! Russia invades, unprovoked,

Your ignorance of a provocation doesn't make any less a provocation for those involved.

Asked about whether she regretted opposing the US-led membership action plan for Ukraine and Georgia in 2008, Merkel said: “Ukraine was not the country that we know now. It was a Ukraine that was very split … even the reformist forces [Yulia] Tymoshenko and [Viktor] Yushchenko were very at odds. That means it was not a country whose democracy was inwardly strengthened.” She said Ukraine at the time was “ruled by oligarchs”.

From the Russian president’s perspective, “it was a declaration of war”. While she didn’t share Putin’s perspective, Merkel said she “knew how he thought” and “didn’t want to provoke it further”.

She claimed to have blocked Ukraine’s route to membership of the military alliance with the country’s best interests at heart. “You cannot become a member of Nato from one day to the next,” Merkel said. “It’s a process, and during this process I knew Putin would have done something to Ukraine that would not have been good for it.”

 

[chonk]

LOL, more of this lunacy. So your brain is chock full of BS conspiracies with no verifiable evidence to support them. Awesome. You are dumb AF.

Do some damn research before you spout off. Money to Ukraine will go to all the companies that produces weapons guns and ammo…and guess who owns those companies. And guess who is in bed with blackrock…the dems.

 

[ButtersHawk]

Oh Butters. You want Ukraine to cede land to a Russian aggressor? I believe Ukraine has already stated that is a no go. The only other option is Russia loses or wins. Which do you prefer?

I mean Crimea is ethnically Russian and wants to be a part of Russia. If that was the only land ceded in return the war is over and Ukraine is still a country only a little smaller I'd take that.

 

[globalhawk]

I mean Crimea is ethnically Russian and wants to be a part of Russia. If that was the only land ceded in return the war is over and Ukraine is still a country only a little smaller I'd take that.

Oh Butters.

 

[globalhawk]

I mean Crimea is ethnically Russian and wants to be a part of Russia. If that was the only land ceded in return the war is over and Ukraine is still a country only a little smaller I'd take that.

If only the Ukrainians and Europeans actually cared about your act.

 

[seminole97]

If only the Ukrainians and Europeans actually cared about your act.

Don't look now.

 

[Randon]

Where does all the "anti-funding for Ukraine" crowd stand on the NATO alliance? If Russia invaded Poland or Finland after overrunning Ukraine would you approve of sending money and troops in their defense as spelled out in NATO's Article 5 or would you rather withdraw from NATO and let Europe fight their own battles?

 

[fsu1jreed]

Where does all the "anti-funding for Ukraine" crowd stand on the NATO alliance? If Russia invaded Poland or Finland after overrunning Ukraine would you approve of sending money and troops in their defense as spelled out in NATO's Article 5 or would you rather withdraw from NATO and let Europe fight their own battles?

Did we learn nothing from the previous World Wars?

 

[ISUBryceC]

I used to do stuff like this until I realized it was a waste of time.

 

[ButtersHawk]

If only the Ukrainians and Europeans actually cared about your act.

Can you ask all those Democratic countries what they think of my idea? Oh wait Ukraine cancelled elections and have no plan for future ones either.

 

[seminole97]

Where does all the "anti-funding for Ukraine" crowd stand on the NATO alliance? If Russia invaded Poland or Finland after overrunning Ukraine would you approve of sending money and troops in their defense as spelled out in NATO's Article 5 or would you rather withdraw from NATO and let Europe fight their own battles?

I'd make clear that in my view, and the intervening 18 years since the 2% pledge was made, and 8 years since the invasion of Ukraine, most of them still refuse to uphold their end.
And I'd set a date to wind down the U.S. taxpayer subsidization of Europe.


The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. - George Washington

----

NATO Expansion Would Be an Epic ‘Fateful Error’​

JULY 7, 1997
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first NATO supreme veallied commander. Shortly after assuming that post, he wrote these words in February 1951:

“If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project [NATO] will have failed.”

One can only wonder at his reaction today if he learned that 46 years later, the United States was the dominant force in a plan not just to continue our powerful military presence there but to enlarge NATO’s responsibilities and increase U.S. costs and risks in Europe. If his granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, is any guide to his reaction, he would not be pleased. She gathered an impressive group of 49 military, political and academic leaders who joined her in signing an open letter to President Clinton on June 26 that terms the plan to expand NATO “a policy error of historic proportions.”

 

[SalAunese]

Do some damn research before you spout off. Money to Ukraine will go to all the companies that produces weapons guns and ammo…and guess who owns those companies. And guess who is in bed with blackrock…the dems.

You have a simpleton’s view of the situation. If people with your mindset get their short-sighted, flawed way, the southern border will be the least of our problems. Why don’t you get an education and do your own research?

 

[SalAunese]

Can you ask all those Democratic countries what they think of my idea? Oh wait Ukraine cancelled elections and have no plan for future ones either.

Jesus Christ you’re not an intelligent being at all.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Did we learn nothing from the previous World Wars?

The term "world wars" is a bit perplexing given that many countries were able to avoid those wars.

 

[fsu1jreed]

The term "world wars" is a bit perplexing given that many countries were able to avoid those wars.

Lmao...it wasn't based on number countries, it was based on the geography of the fighting

 

[seminole97]

Lmao...it wasn't based on number countries, it was based on the geography of the fighting

What if we hadn’t joined WW1 to bail out the House of Morgan from their investments in French and British war debt?