I think so...there are enough yes votes in the Senate for sure.
The House is more problematic but I think Johnson brings it to a vote and there will be enough R/D votes to get it through. If it fails in the House it's on the R's.
This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
The House is more problematic but I think Johnson brings it to a vote and there will be enough R/D votes to get it through. If it fails in the House it's on the R's.
At best it still feels like lipstick on a pig. Rather it go towards real solutions and not only bandaids.
The priority in all this is Ukraine aid...whatever it takes.
R's get what they want. Ukraine aid goes through. Border basically gets taken off the table as an issue in 2024 (we did what R's wanted)
Not seeing a real downside here cutting a deal.
Not my preference but if that is what it takes, that is what it takes.
Here's the thing politically.
Ukraine has basically become a 50/50 issue by polling. The reality is the R's really don't take a political hit if Ukraine aid doesn't go through over the border issue. It's not like the CR or budget where the D's can hit the R's over the head and get them to concede.
R's can stand firm on this and really not take a political hit. That's just the reality of the situation.
Need to cut a deal...
And they need to knock that shit off and support US policy against Russia, which has nothing to do with the Mexican border.
They won't support most common-sense immigration policy, anyway.
Johnson won't bring it to a vote, because his MAGA minions will not allow that.
That's so cute you think the border issue will just "go away"...
U.S. border security and safety of American citizens isn’t a demand it’s to be expected.
Just has a coworker and friend grump to me how he hopes another dime does not go to Ukraine. It is sad how brainwashed people are in how still Russia has its fingers in US GOP.
It’s straight up stupid to not cite sources. That’s being lazy.
multi million and multi billion dollar companies still hiring illegals in 2023 shouldn’t be expected or accepted either but it is. Pay some fines when they get raided and move some more in.
Same with me. I told him the choice is simple. Either you support Russia and Putin or you support Ukraine. There is no in-between.
I will be honest, I have mostly unplugged from politics. Our two biggest enemies are Russia and China. Call them 1A and 1B. What are the Republican talking points for allowing 1A take land from a European democracy through violence and war crimes, when we have decimated 1A's military without shedding a drop of US Army blood, for pennies on the dollar? Especially when 1B will tailor its own military landgrabs based upon how we respond to 1A? How is Reagan revered by many republicans, yet cutting off aid to Ukraine would be the last thing he would have done?
R's have supported Ukraine up to this point. Look at the votes in congress as proof. We've been funding the Ukraine war effort for the last 22 months.
Now they're tying the support to their border demands. Doesn't seem like a major concession from Joe and D's to me...if Ukraine aid continues.
The talking points are domestic issues are more important than Ukraine. Yes it’s tragic what is happening to them. But so are overdoses and border security issues in the US. They still won’t look at the long term issues. Just the symptoms of what has brought the border to this point. It’s a political winner for them.
No; they have not.
It's why McCarthy isn't Speaker, anymore. He could no longer "control" the fringe elements.
Personal
"Ukraine's drone dropping grenades slowly killed a Russian soldier. The Russian soldier, whose code name was Gypsy (inscription written on the butt of the gun) was unable to escape, although one of the grenades did not explode."
"Ukrainian drones dropped grenades on Russian soldiers near the town of Klischiivka, south of Bakhmut, Donetsk region. There were many casualties, including one guy whose butt was burned."
"Ukraine's drone dropping grenades slowly killed a Russian soldier. The Russian soldier, whose code name was Gypsy (inscription written on the butt of the gun) was unable to escape, although one of the grenades did not explode."
"Ukrainian drones dropped grenades on Russian soldiers near the town of Klischiivka, south of Bakhmut, Donetsk region. There were many casualties, including one guy whose butt was burned."
They are 2 completely separate issues that should not be in the same bill at all. The republicans can’t get what they want so they are ok with hijacking support for thousands of innocent Ukrainian lives, and ultimately the security of Europe.
Over the weekend, border-policy negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans fell apart. The talks were meant to firm up Republican support for the president’s massive $105 billion military support proposal ahead of Wednesday’s vote by including additional funds for border security in the spending package. Now, with no imminent approval of further aid to Ukraine, hawks in government and the media are trying to stoke panic about what will happen if Kyiv is cut off from US support.
In a letter to Congress Monday, White House budget director Shalanda Young told Congress the funds will dry up by the end of the year:
If we’re going to understand what might happen in the absence of US involvement in Ukraine, we must first understand Washington’s actual effect on the war, the true nature of which has been laid out brilliantly in a series of recent columns by Ted Snider.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began with a bombardment of cruise missiles on February 24, 2022. Later that day, infantry and armored divisions rolled in from Russia, Belarus, and Crimea while paratroopers dropped in around the capital city of Kyiv.
Days later, as the shock and confusion of the initial offensive began to dissipate, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky attempted to set up indirect talks with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Zelensky called then–Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett and asked him to contact Putin and to serve as a mediator. Bennett agreed.
Over the next week, Bennett had a series of phone calls with Putin before traveling to Moscow and Berlin to help organize diplomatic communication channels. His effort culminated in a March 10 meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers in Turkey.
In the series of talks that followed, Bennett described both sides as making “huge concessions” in pursuit of a ceasefire.
But Kyiv’s Western backers were resistant to the truce. At a special summit on March 24, NATO decided not to support or approve the peace negotiations. Still, Zelensky and Putin kept at it. And on March 29, the two sides reached an agreement.
According to a draft unsealed this past June, Russia had agreed to pull its forces back to prewar boundaries. In exchange, Ukraine had agreed it would not seek NATO membership.
So why didn’t it happen? Well, it may have started to. In early April, Russia withdrew its forces from northern Ukraine, around Kyiv—an action Putin later said was related to the Istanbul agreement.
But then, according to Bennett, former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, Turkish foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, and the leader of the Ukrainian delegation to the talks, David Arakhamia, the West pressured Zelensky to abandon negotiations and fight.
Assuming the best intentions, it’s possible officials in Washington and Brussels believed the Ukrainians could win enough battles to improve their leverage in future negotiations. But that is not what happened.
Instead, Washington bankrolled a horrifying twenty-one-month war of attrition that has cost the people of Ukraine greatly in land, lives, and limbs. After talks broke down, Russia laid permanent claim to tens of thousands of square miles of Ukrainian territory that it had earlier agreed to relinquish.
Last summer, Ukrainian forces began attempting to retake this land by force in the so-called counteroffensive. But they have since lost more territory than they have gained. Ukraine keeps its casualty count classified, but by the end of August US estimates had put it north of two hundred thousand. And it has likely climbed substantially with the ongoing struggle to break through heavy Russian minefields.
As their supply of military-aged men has dwindled, the average age of a Ukrainian soldier has climbed to forty-three. And now there is a push within the Ukrainian government to lower the draft age to begin conscripting those who have so far been too young to be eligible.
The Ukrainian people are being put through hell. And now even senior Ukrainian military officials admit there is no military path out.
If the purpose of stifling the Istanbul agreement was to help the Ukrainians gain more leverage, the West must admit failure before Ukraine loses even more.
And if Washington’s intentions were more nefarious—as comments from officials like Mitch McConnell, who have framed the war as an easy way to burden Russia without spilling American blood, suggest—that’s all the more reason to call off this horrific project.
That brings us back to the original question. What would happen if the United States stopped supporting Ukraine?
We already know.
Ukraine and Russia would work toward a deal. It won’t go as well for Ukraine as it did almost two years ago when they were stronger. But it’s not a path to fear. Because the alternative is that the White House gets its way and this brutal, unnecessary war carries on. And that’s so much worse.
In a letter to Congress Monday, White House budget director Shalanda Young told Congress the funds will dry up by the end of the year:
Young goes on to forecast disaster for Ukraine if more money isn’t allocated. But is that really accurate? Are the Ukrainian people doomed if Washington stops funding the war?
If we’re going to understand what might happen in the absence of US involvement in Ukraine, we must first understand Washington’s actual effect on the war, the true nature of which has been laid out brilliantly in a series of recent columns by Ted Snider.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began with a bombardment of cruise missiles on February 24, 2022. Later that day, infantry and armored divisions rolled in from Russia, Belarus, and Crimea while paratroopers dropped in around the capital city of Kyiv.
Days later, as the shock and confusion of the initial offensive began to dissipate, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky attempted to set up indirect talks with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Zelensky called then–Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett and asked him to contact Putin and to serve as a mediator. Bennett agreed.
Over the next week, Bennett had a series of phone calls with Putin before traveling to Moscow and Berlin to help organize diplomatic communication channels. His effort culminated in a March 10 meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers in Turkey.
In the series of talks that followed, Bennett described both sides as making “huge concessions” in pursuit of a ceasefire.
But Kyiv’s Western backers were resistant to the truce. At a special summit on March 24, NATO decided not to support or approve the peace negotiations. Still, Zelensky and Putin kept at it. And on March 29, the two sides reached an agreement.
According to a draft unsealed this past June, Russia had agreed to pull its forces back to prewar boundaries. In exchange, Ukraine had agreed it would not seek NATO membership.
So why didn’t it happen? Well, it may have started to. In early April, Russia withdrew its forces from northern Ukraine, around Kyiv—an action Putin later said was related to the Istanbul agreement.
But then, according to Bennett, former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, Turkish foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, and the leader of the Ukrainian delegation to the talks, David Arakhamia, the West pressured Zelensky to abandon negotiations and fight.
Assuming the best intentions, it’s possible officials in Washington and Brussels believed the Ukrainians could win enough battles to improve their leverage in future negotiations. But that is not what happened.
Instead, Washington bankrolled a horrifying twenty-one-month war of attrition that has cost the people of Ukraine greatly in land, lives, and limbs. After talks broke down, Russia laid permanent claim to tens of thousands of square miles of Ukrainian territory that it had earlier agreed to relinquish.
Last summer, Ukrainian forces began attempting to retake this land by force in the so-called counteroffensive. But they have since lost more territory than they have gained. Ukraine keeps its casualty count classified, but by the end of August US estimates had put it north of two hundred thousand. And it has likely climbed substantially with the ongoing struggle to break through heavy Russian minefields.
As their supply of military-aged men has dwindled, the average age of a Ukrainian soldier has climbed to forty-three. And now there is a push within the Ukrainian government to lower the draft age to begin conscripting those who have so far been too young to be eligible.
The Ukrainian people are being put through hell. And now even senior Ukrainian military officials admit there is no military path out.
If the purpose of stifling the Istanbul agreement was to help the Ukrainians gain more leverage, the West must admit failure before Ukraine loses even more.
And if Washington’s intentions were more nefarious—as comments from officials like Mitch McConnell, who have framed the war as an easy way to burden Russia without spilling American blood, suggest—that’s all the more reason to call off this horrific project.
That brings us back to the original question. What would happen if the United States stopped supporting Ukraine?
We already know.
Ukraine and Russia would work toward a deal. It won’t go as well for Ukraine as it did almost two years ago when they were stronger. But it’s not a path to fear. Because the alternative is that the White House gets its way and this brutal, unnecessary war carries on. And that’s so much worse.
Ted Snider = Nat Algren. He always blamed the U.S. and always sides with Russia. I bet he was loudly proclaiming in early 2022 that Russia would not invade.
We wouldn't have had funding until now without R support. Bring up any Ukraine aid bill up until now as reference.
Russia has broken EVERY agreement it has made on this matter.
Zelensky was correct in NOT accepting them at their word. Putin's word is USELESS.
This and you remain ****ing laughable. The bolded part is ****ing absurd to think it was ever an offer from Russia, as it is exactly what Ukraine has been seeking as the settlement. Then your final paragraph is equally absurd, stating "it won't go as well for Ukraine as it did almost two years ago when they were stronger." Ukraine just took out 90% of the Russian Army and they have embarrassed Russia to the entire world as being a toothless, small-dicked adversary with nothing to fear. It's currently a stalemate because Russia has mined their current positions to near impossibility of breaching. But keep on spouting your propaganda from that shithole country, unfortunately too many of our dumbass citizens [Republicans] fall for it.
We basically try to pretend he is not a Nole.
Republicans support aid to Israel, Ukraine and most importantly border security. We can do all three.
This part:
But then, according to Bennett, former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, Turkish foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, and the leader of the Ukrainian delegation to the talks, David Arakhamia, the West pressured Zelensky to abandon negotiations and fight.
Did you read the links?
These are from people directly involved, not Twitter opinions.
Yahoo reposted part of the interview with Schroeder:
Source: Schröder during a lengthy interview with the left-wing Berliner Zeitung
Quote: "I received a request from Ukraine in 2022 to mediate between Russia and Ukraine. The question was whether I would be able to convey a message to Putin," the former German Chancellor said.
Details: The former chancellor also mentioned the five points of what was supposedly a "peace plan" being discussed at the time: Ukraine's rejection of NATO membership, "two official languages" in Ukraine, Donbas "autonomy", "security guarantees" for Ukraine, and negotiations on the status of Crimea.
"The only people who could resolve the war over Ukraine are the Americans. During the peace talks in March 2022 in Istanbul with Rustem Umierov [incumbent Ukraine’s Defence Minister – ed.], Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They had to coordinate everything they talked about with the Americans first," Schröder said.
100% agree that Russia has demonstrated to be far weaker than anyone (including the Kremlin or the CIA given their early war predictions) realized.
The nothing to fear part is interesting, because there are people saying that Western Europe is at dire risk of Russian invasion and domination. I don't subscribe to this myself, because I think they want to avoid a fight with NATO, and this war has only served to reinforce that.
But the most important thing is Ukraine's position today versus March of 2022.
They've lost a lot more lives (surely an enormous portion of their pre-war armed forces), and suffered a lot more destruction across their country.
In 2023 they lost ground net, and are now facing the question of how many lives traded in 2024 to what gain, or more loss? If at the end of 2024 they've lost more ground do you keep at it?
If keep throwing money and arms into it do we run out of Ukrainians before the Russians quit?
Then what?
I think the author is right, that when this wars comes to end and we compare the Ukrainian position to where they stood at the time of this March agreement, it won't be favorable for Ukraine.
We'll see.
Why is reporting from the people involved in the negotiations 'propaganda'?
What do you think the history books will be citing? Them, or a talking head on MSNBC?
Finally, I live in Tallahassee, dumbass, and 67% of Democrats support a ceasefire now too.
Are most people 'falling for it', or are fewer people than ever 'falling for it'?
"Surroundings of Avdiyivka, Donetsk regionConsequences of Russian "meat assaults"Video from soldiers of the 47th OMBr"
Last edited:
In what sense?
Even Bernie Sanders understood you can’t have a fancy welfare state and open borders.
“What we need is comprehensive immigration reform,” he continued. “If you open the borders, my God, there’s a lot of poverty in this world, and you’re going to have people from all over the world. And I don’t think that’s something that we can do at this point. Can’t do it. So that is not my position.”
Democrats do not run on "open borders" as a policy.
The only people claiming they do are wacky Republicans.
Are we really using Gerhard Schroder quotes here? The guy goes fishing with Putin.
Yes, quotes from the people involved have more value than the opinions expressed in Twitter and on TV by people not involved.
Do you also discount the account from ‘the leader of the Ukrainian delegation to the talks, David Arakhamia‘?
When his account is confirmed by Schroeder, who was involved, it’s considered a confirmation in journalism circles.
Schroeder went farther than Arakhamia's characterization which was that Russia did not agree to several of Ukraine's terms. Schroeder made it sound like a done deal scuttled by Americans.
Dems have proposed immigration reform.
Republicans want no reform so they have a campaign issue to key on.
You think Dim Kim wants to go after the Lang family? They employed the man that killed Molly Tibbitts.
The latest piece of corroboration comes courtesy David Arakhamia, the parliamentary leader of Zelensky’s “Servant of the People” party who led the Ukrainian delegation in peace talks with Moscow. Arakhamia told journalist Natalia Moseichuk in a recent televised interview that “Russia's goal was to push us to take neutrality,” meaning to commit to not joining NATO, and that “they were ready to end the war if we accept neutrality.”
There were several reasons the negotiations ultimately collapsed, he said, including the need to change the Ukrainian constitution (which had been amended in February 2019 to enshrine the country’s NATO aspirations), and the fact that Johnson had come to Kyiv to inform Ukrainian officials the West wouldn’t sign any agreement with Moscow, instead urging: “let’s just fight.”
