Successful penetration of Russian malicious interests into the American politics will probably lead the way to a much deeper impact than visible war efforts, even if only longer term. Politicians like those alleging "tax payers" protection (what other thing, second to religion, sells better to Americans?) are the cancer that will consume from inside. Slowly and surely. 2024 will then see the malignancy taking place to no recoverable state, probably, if Putin gets to survive in place until then.
> Aren't Democrats Putin agents for not providing more aid to Ukraine though? Zelenskyy clearly has said they need more, so the logical conclusion is that Putin ordered those in power to reject those requests and only provide a reduced amount of aid.
There is nothing logical about your statement. The US government, thanks to Biden's administration, is by far Ukraine's largest backer.
> Ahh, trying to deflect the spotlight from your comrades, eh Ivan?
Your ad hominem makes it clear that you have no arguments to present. I don't have a dog in the US domestic politics race. I'm neither a US citizen nor live anywhere close to the US. I do have some knowledge into the volume of support from Ukraine's allies declared so far, and the US is by far the largest supporter. Only recently did the EU collectively surpassed the US.
One could argue that giving one side enough support to keep fighting, but not enough to win, causes long term damage to them. The US did something similar to Iraq against Iran in the 1980's and we also used the Mujahedeen(the basis of al-Qaeda) against the Soviets despite the long term harm it caused to the people of Afghanistan.
In proxy wars, nothing is as simple as we would like.
> One could argue that giving one side enough support to keep fighting, but not enough to win, causes long term damage to them.
I don't agree. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been ongoing for around a decade, but only recently has support ramped up to adequate levels.
I recall that Germany's initial response to Russia's 2022 invasion was to pledge handing over helmets.
The goal of a conflict is to win, and what represents winning really depends on your situation. In Ukraine's position, winning might mean more than forcing out Russia from it's territory. For Ukraine, winning might mean breaking Russia's willingness to continue perpetrating a genocide that's ongoing for around a decade.
The sources are “afp and rt” - that’s “Russia Today.”
The website includes articles with titles: “Russia: Ukrainian Special Services Prepare Major Anti-Moscow False Flag in Kharkov” and “Ukraine Truce Ordered by Putin Takes Effect as West Vows to Send Heavy Weaponry.”
This is a Russian propaganda site. They’re trying to demoralize Ukraine by claiming
the US can’t be relied upon.
Edit: I’m trying to find a reputable source for this. Some mainstream news sources talk about it “raising questions”, but nothing definitive. Some mainstream articles have scary headlines about this, but the articles don’t say anything specific.
Zelenskyy has congratulate McCarthy on Twitter in what seems to be an effort to dispel this narrative.
The only news outlet supporting this story is Russia Today.
The details of the Telegraph article are different from the headline.
> According to reports, to end the impasse, Mr McCarthy agreed a deal that the House would commit to passing bills that would cap all discretionary defence spending at 2022 financial year levels, meaning roughly $1.47 trillion. Congress has passed four emergency supplementals totalling more than $100 billion since Russia’s invasion in February.
> President Joe Biden will require Congress to approve any additional military aid later this year. Should one of the rebel lawmakers - who have vowed to oppose any further aid packages - be given leadership roles in the House Rules Committee it could create immense hurdles to passing additional assistance legislation.
Capping defense spending, and creating a veto-ocracy are very different than “cutting aid to Ukraine.”
The Telegraph article headline includes a quote: “agreed to cut aid to Ukraine”, but nowhere in the article is that quote found.
16 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 41.4 ms ] threadThere is nothing logical about your statement. The US government, thanks to Biden's administration, is by far Ukraine's largest backer.
Your ad hominem makes it clear that you have no arguments to present. I don't have a dog in the US domestic politics race. I'm neither a US citizen nor live anywhere close to the US. I do have some knowledge into the volume of support from Ukraine's allies declared so far, and the US is by far the largest supporter. Only recently did the EU collectively surpassed the US.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/media-information/2022/...
If you have nothing productive to add, consider saying nothing.
In proxy wars, nothing is as simple as we would like.
I don't agree. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been ongoing for around a decade, but only recently has support ramped up to adequate levels.
I recall that Germany's initial response to Russia's 2022 invasion was to pledge handing over helmets.
The goal of a conflict is to win, and what represents winning really depends on your situation. In Ukraine's position, winning might mean more than forcing out Russia from it's territory. For Ukraine, winning might mean breaking Russia's willingness to continue perpetrating a genocide that's ongoing for around a decade.
The website includes articles with titles: “Russia: Ukrainian Special Services Prepare Major Anti-Moscow False Flag in Kharkov” and “Ukraine Truce Ordered by Putin Takes Effect as West Vows to Send Heavy Weaponry.”
This is a Russian propaganda site. They’re trying to demoralize Ukraine by claiming the US can’t be relied upon.
Edit: I’m trying to find a reputable source for this. Some mainstream news sources talk about it “raising questions”, but nothing definitive. Some mainstream articles have scary headlines about this, but the articles don’t say anything specific.
Zelenskyy has congratulate McCarthy on Twitter in what seems to be an effort to dispel this narrative.
The only news outlet supporting this story is Russia Today.
The details of the Telegraph article are different from the headline.
> According to reports, to end the impasse, Mr McCarthy agreed a deal that the House would commit to passing bills that would cap all discretionary defence spending at 2022 financial year levels, meaning roughly $1.47 trillion. Congress has passed four emergency supplementals totalling more than $100 billion since Russia’s invasion in February.
> President Joe Biden will require Congress to approve any additional military aid later this year. Should one of the rebel lawmakers - who have vowed to oppose any further aid packages - be given leadership roles in the House Rules Committee it could create immense hurdles to passing additional assistance legislation.
Capping defense spending, and creating a veto-ocracy are very different than “cutting aid to Ukraine.”
The Telegraph article headline includes a quote: “agreed to cut aid to Ukraine”, but nowhere in the article is that quote found.
Which information is coming from where?