10 february, 2024
Russian opposition politician Mark Feygin says that the delay in aid to Ukraine is also a favourable moment for the Biden administration
He said this in an interview with Anton Borkovskyi, host of the Studio West program on Espreso TV.
“For a democratic administration, the delay in aid to Ukraine is also a very favourable moment. Because Biden has the opportunity to provide weapons and military assistance to Ukraine from the Pentagon budget, regardless of the decision of Congress. But what does he say? Biden is saying: no, we will not do this, let the Republicans bear all the responsibility. If they refuse to allocate these 60 billion, then let them be responsible for everything. That is, it is a kind of game on the Democrats’ part,” Feygin said.
According to him, there is a line within the US Democratic administration that is aimed at forcing Ukraine to negotiate with Moscow through concessions.
“To give up this 20% of the territory and get who knows what, there are no parameters for possible negotiations with Moscow that would be beneficial to Ukraine. We don’t know, because the preconditions for the liberation of the occupied territories are rejected by Moscow right out of the gate. And in general, the West is also calmly reacting to this ultimatum from Moscow,” Feygin said.
The Russian opposition politician suggested that for the Democrats and Biden, delaying aid to Ukraine is a very convenient position.
“In which Biden will say: I’m ready to help, I even made concessions on the borders, I’m ready for a wall on the Mexican border, but they don’t want to, you see how the Republicans behave – in an ultimatum manner. So, for some part of Biden’s entourage, giving him extra points, it is beneficial to present it in such a way that the problem is only with the Republicans. Of course, the game is more complicated. And a clear conclusion: Ukraine has become a hostage to the US election campaign. And it’s likely to stay that way until November. We are already in February, with at least six months left. But sooner or later, it has to end,” Feygin added.
The bill still needs to be approved in essence by at least 60 members of the US Senate after debate.
- On February 8, the US Senate approved a procedural decision on aid to Ukraine.
We have questioned all along why Biden isn’t using his powers to bypass Congress for Ukraine aid. The theory above is a viable one. We should not forget that dirty politics is not being made only by certain Republicans.
Sadly, true, Mr. Ofp. This really looks like Team Biden is playing a cynical game for political advantages, at the expense of countless Ukrainian lives. Shame on all those effing poker sharks!
Yes, it seems that there are guilty parties in both parties. Pun intended.
Ukraine are in negotiations with Biden’s admin to extend this so called lend lease that expired in 2023. I haven’t heard anything since the end of January. This must be the best way to proceed, then the GOP can’t complain that it is wasting taxpayers money, if Ukraine have to pay everything back.
The lend-lease authorization is an annual thing. The 2023 authorization expired, and it didn’t get included in the 2024 NDAA. So I’ve be interested in seeing how they think it could be extended without Congressional approval.
Why wouldn’t Congress approve it?
The main issue is that most US military generals don’t believe that Ukraine could ever take back all occupied territories on her own without an external military intervention. Since Zelensky rejected any negotiations with Putin additionally, many see it as a waste of money and intend to force Zelensky to the negotiation table by cutting off all aid to end this mess.
Can you give me a link or links about those American generals that think like that, Mike?
They will not say this in public, Facts.
Okay, gotcha, Mike.
Then how do you know what they believe? Did they tell you in private? Or are you taking the word of some third party as to what those generals believe?
I cannot tell my sources without getting myself into trouble.
Contact former Ukrainian General Zaluzhny. He will tell you the same. That’s why he got fired.
This seems completely false to me based on what I have read:
“Even if the U.S. uses the financing authority to purchase weapons, Congress still needs to authorize additional funding to support Ukraine, the U.S. official said.
The administration could also potentially ask Congress to redirect funding from elsewhere in the Pentagon budget to support Ukraine, according to a Defense Department official familiar with the discussions. However, this route would require approval from lawmakers.” (Politico)
Even if Congress agreed, which is unthinkable given what is currently happening on Capitol Hill, how can foreign aid spending be integrated into the current defense budget? Are we cutting the salaries of US military personnel?
Support for Ukraine requires voting on the bill currently being negotiated in Congress.
The only other solution is “through U.S. military contractors who do not need Congressional approval to co-produce weapons with Ukrainian companies. The administration encourages them to contribute to the development of Ukraine’s defense industry” (responsiblestatecraft.org)
We implore you to vote for this aid to Ukraine, to Taiwan, to Israel-Gaza. It’s a vote for the right to life!
Surely, you can then explain to me why it worked with Israel at least two time already, Bert, but not once with Ukraine? BTW, it also worked getting military aid to Taiwan.
I was primarily responding to the substance of the article which suggested that the current Pentagon budget could be used for purposes other than those for which it was voted. And this does not seem possible without the agreement of legislators.
Concerning the last 2 arms deliveries to Israel, they are possible via the “Emergency Arms Sales”. A president can bypass Congress if “exceptional” situations arise. This lever is very rarely used by the US government in general. I don’t know if Biden can decide on spending of 90 billion using this tool. I think the idea is to ensure Congressional support for Ukraine in the long term. The risk in systematically bypassing Congress is that new blockages occur at the Capitol (blocking of laws, shut down…). But that’s just an opinion.
Of course, getting Congress to cooperate would be a best case scenario. However, this is becoming a rather far-fetched idea. The only thing that might make the pro-russian faction in Congress relent is Trump’s presidential aspirations being destroyed one way or another, or his death.
If Biden were truly interested in supporting Ukraine, why isn’t he using whatever tools available to do so? It worked for Israel and for Taiwan.
“arms deliveries to Israel, they are possible via the “Emergency Arms Sales”.”
President Biden could authorize “Emergency Arms Sales” to Ukraine, if Ukraine has the cash to pay for it. If Ukraine has 60 billion to spare, then we can bypass Congress.
It doesn’t have to be $60 billion, but whatever Ukraine can pay for, and wouldn’t even have to be paid right away. It took decades for other nations to pay back the US after WWII.
It wasn’t bert,
I am bert
^bert
Maybe it is time for an account.
It happened before with some of my alleged alter-ego’s that weren’t mine.
^bert
Good idea, Bert. It would save you from adding ^bert all the time.
Imho, what the article is talking about is the US Department of Defences disposal of excess and surplus material program. This means, the DOD can declare equipment in stock as surpkus and hand it over to contractors for disposal, without additional approval by Congress. So, Lloyd Austin could order to hand over mothballed Bradleys, missiles and bombs to Ukraine, as long as this doesn’t include additional spending for updates, repairs and the like. That would be a workaround for the Rethuglican blockade in the House.
Exactly, Mr. Gray. And, we have masses of surplus materiel in storage. I even wrote an article about this a number of months ago. We could not only keep Ukraine going with this equipment, but help them to achieve a numerical superiority over the roaches. But, for whatever reason, there is no political will in the White House to go that route.
One day, we must pay top dollar to get rid of a lot of this stuff through civilian contractors and/or military disposal units, instead of letting it destroy our worst enemy.
Oh, please repost that article, with a short introduction why this may be the way to bypass Congress, Mr. Ofp! I think the discussion here showed that readers need to be informed of that possibility.
Here is the link, Mr. Gray:
I believe that someone replied with an explanation why that wouldn’t really work. The equipment has to be usable – not require repair by the US. And the recipient has to pick it up – the military transporting it would incur costs. And finally, there are no excess munitions that could be sent.
The latter point was also stated by David Axe – “While Biden has broad authority to donate surplus American weapons without first seeking Congressional approval, it’s not clear that authority applies to ammunition.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/02/russian-artillery-gunners-are-getting-cocky-as-ukraine-runs-out-of-ammo-russian-guns-gather-for-devastating-salvos/?sh=463a5f826eb3
I’m sure that where there is a will, there is a way, Larry. But, there seems to be no will for this in the White House. As for ammo, the other allies who are not downgrading themselves to be ass-kissers for mafia land like us could provide it.
“‘could provide it”
So why aren’t they?
(Seems like everybody needs to increase production capacity.)
“So why aren’t they?”
They will. As soon as they realize that if they won’t increase production of everything necessary to help Ukraine, and this quickly, they will be the ones manning the trenches.