October 29, 2023
When elected officials and commentators argue that funds sent to Ukraine would be better spent securing our southern border, it seems disingenuous. Does anyone actually think that sending the money to the Department of Homeland Security would prevent migrant border crossings?
To suggest we don’t have the money to support Ukraine is generally specious. Funding allocated to climate and green initiatives by the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan Infrastructure Reduction Act is in the trillions.
Additionally, when one compares the southern border to the Ukrainian eastern border, that again is specious. The crisis at our southern border is current policy, adopted by our own government, and is premeditated. Conversely, Ukraine did not choose the Russian invasion. The administration’s position of accepting a “minor incursion” of Ukraine was a permission slip to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Another argument is that we should not interfere in foreign issues. That would be novel, and Israel looms large. The United States has a history of putting boots on the ground in foreign conflicts when we had no requirement or prior agreement to do so. In Ukraine, there are no U.S. boots on the ground, but we do have an agreement to support Ukraine in time of conflict ― it’s called the Budapest Memorandum.
Ukraine complied fully, giving up their entire nuclear arsenal. Conversely, the U.S. has gingerly upheld their end of the agreement. If you want to stop supporting Ukraine, give them their nukes back.
As for funding accountability, some estimates show that less than 50% of the authorized funding has made its way to Ukraine, far less than the authorized amount. The State Department and Ukrainian government are both tracking the money — to whom it’s going and on what it was spent. Don’t be surprised when U.S. companies show up as funded arms suppliers, making a huge profit.
Another argument is that we are depleting our military capabilities. Yet, early in the war the U.S. sent Ukraine ammunition from forward-based stockpiles that were about to expire. Instead of being destroyed, they were put to use. Speaking of depleted U.S. military supplies, it’s not Ukraine’s fault if we are behind in restocking the military.
If we want to determine fault in regard to keeping military stockpiles, we need to look in the mirror.
Regarding corruption, the U.S. shouldn’t complain. Ukraine is still suffering from a Soviet corruption hangover, but they are making progress. Can the same be said about the United States?
It’s reasonable to question the strategy. The same question was undoubtedly asked of Winston Churchill when the Germans were bombing England. It’s easy to imagine that without U.S. support, England’s strategy was simply to stay alive until full support was finally sent. In this war, with a Russian 3-to-1 population advantage and the butchery of the Wagner Group, Ukraine has continued to stand.
The strategy to win the war depends on the assets and equipment Ukraine will have at their disposal. Allocate the weapons that win, and the winning strategy will follow. When one complains that Ukraine is not making enough progress in the counter-offensive, then we shouldn’t have delayed delivery of support by six months. That delay permitted Russians to dig in, which did nothing but condemn thousands of Ukrainian soldiers to a grisly death.
With the trickle of trench warfare support, which has cost the lives of thousands of soldiers and costs even more money when strung out over years, the Ukrainians are fighting just about the entire malign world. Russia has supplies from China, weapons from Iran and (allegedly) soldiers from Cuba. Yet, Ukraine stands and fights alone.
For many reasons, the U.S. should not only continue supplying Ukraine ― and now Israel — but supply them with the weapons and armament they need to win. Not next year, and not in 18 months, but now.
Russia can argue a win if they gain any territory, and much more would be at risk. In any territory they keep, the Ukrainian population will no doubt be slaughtered. History shows us examples of that occurring in Ukraine during both World Wars and the Holodomor, or even Bucha just a few months ago.
If Russia gains control of Ukraine, they move closer to Kaliningrad (a former German city between Poland and Lithuania, now a far-western Russian province). Putin would most likely ask, why shouldn’t our lands be united? Who would question a much smaller “incursion?” China is watching, as are Iran and North Korea. Eastern Europe and Taiwan, however, are praying.
“For many reasons, the U.S. should not only continue supplying Ukraine ― and now Israel — but supply them with the weapons and armament they need to win. Not next year, and not in 18 months, but now.”
Let’s face it; to win this war, Joe Biden’s strategy is a complete failure. It’s almost as bad as his open-border policy and his shameful and despicable exit from Afghanistan. The guy just can’t do president. His methodology of saying no for a long time and then sending too little too late is prolonging the war and causing untold thousands of additional deaths.
“China is watching, as are Iran and North Korea. Eastern Europe and Taiwan, however, are praying.”
Indeed, they are watching. And, what they’re seeing is encouraging to them. They see that even if the West helps a nation under attack, it will do so only lazily. And, they learned that to keep at it long enough will make the marshmallows in the West tire. Of course, open mafia assets like Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and Tucker Carlson, and others are a great help to those evil nations.
The scum that you name at the end of your comment are directly responsible not only for for Ukrainian deaths, but for poisoning American minds against Ukraine.
it seemed to me that politicians also inherit situations from their predecessors… and that the exit from Afghanistan was developed under Trump and that Biden’s only mistake is not having redone/rethink the work of his predecessor.
just to say that – how would China have behaved if the Russian army had collapsed suddenly thanks to American aid? by postulate everything is/was possible?
It also seems to me that we must be aware now that Westerners do not represent the majority of the world, and that the “global south” is a little fed up with certain lessons/actions and the impunity of certain Westerners. .. (we must understand, for example, that for the whole world, there is a before and an after Bush son…)
In short, I see for the moment in Biden someone who manages the risks of conflagration/explosion, contagion… and I don’t think he has had a more complex and more critical situation than now, in my opinion. opinion there is no room for simplistic views/actions…
@scadgel
in two words why Clinton’s leadership was weakened?
I’ve heard the lame argument numerous times … that it was Trump’s deal with the Taliban and bla, bla, bla. Fact is that the Taliban broke the agreement several times. Thus, Biden, if he had brains and balls, could and should have slammed his fist on the table and warned the terrorists. He also had a choice to throw the deal out the window. If one signatory breaks an agreement, the other signatory is free to do so too.
What would bat virus have done if the mafia army had collapsed? Nothing. But, they would’ve learned that the West means business when an innocent nation gets brutally attacked. But, we missed the bus for this scenarios to happen. Instead, we’ve shown china how disorganized we are, how cowardly and slow we are. This gives them encouragement to wage their own “special military operation”.
Sorry, but a war in Europe has nothing to do with the rest of the globe, save showing the rest of the globe how stupid we are when an innocent country gets brutalized. They see the deep-seated weakness in our bones. Biden has done us no favors with his too little, too late methodology. The rest – Macron, Scholz, et al. – too.
“it was Trump’s deal with the Taliban”
That’s a fact.
“He also had a choice to throw the deal out the window.”
That’s true – but then it would have become his war, and the deaths of any US soldiers in Afghanistan would have been on his conscience.
“… but then it would have become his war…”
No, it wouldn’t. It would’ve been if Biden had been the first to break the deal’s terms.
It depends on one’s point of view.
Certainly, it would have left him open for an attack by Trumpkov saying “I had a deal to pull us out, but Biden wanted the war to continue.” It doesn’t matter what the Taliban did; those in the Trump cult are only going to listen to & believe what he says.
And that doesn’t address “the deaths of any US soldiers in Afghanistan would have been on his conscience.”
You might be right about what the trumpov camp would claim if Biden had slapped the Taliban in their face. But, no matter what Biden does, they complain, so this is a moot point.
One man; Bill Clinton, pressured Ukraine to sign Budapest, when their leadership was wavering.
There is no way they would have signed it had they known it was a worthless piece of paper.
The US and Britain must honour their obligations and bring this genocidal war to an end.
Biden, or his successor (obviously not in the case of putler asset Trumpkov), should abandon the ridiculous policy of constantly reassuring putler that no US servicemen will be involved. It’s giving exaggerated respect to a squalid little poisoner, especially in light of Biden’s willingness to engage with China and Iran.
Announce the NFZ and finish this shit now.
I seriously doubt that we’ll ever see a NFZ, Scradge. There is no one with enough courage and brains to do that. No one at all…
NFZ. Is that a no fly zone, or a no fear zone?
Right. If they were to call out a no fear zone in Washington, Berlin, and Paris, this would be a good start. Then, a regular NFZ over Ukraine could become a reality.
Yes. I’m afraid I was fantasizing.
Even if one of the best two candidates for the GOP; Haley and CC, were selected, they’d still fall well short of the NFZ.
No senior western politician since the Reagan-Thatcher years would do it, except probably John McCain.
The only current Republican who might get appropriately tough on putler is Roger Wicker.
There is of course no Dem who’d do it either.
Our political landscape is a wasteland.
@OFP
you make me smile with your Reagan, he’s the one who looks the most like Trump in fact….! it wasn’t the same time. in my opinion their transposition into our time would be catastrophic…. personally I don’t want to see! 🙂 you are nostalgic, you miss your youth, when the world was simpler, when the US was more feared and respected… when you were more seductive and attractive 😉
(otherwise we assume with arguments that China would have been more committed… for the NFZ, Ukraine will have its modern aviation)
@OFP
we don’t reassure poutine we manage. we also manage the number of people who would like to see Westerners bite the dust. for 3/4 of the world, Ukraine is a European problem which takes up too much space to the detriment of other conflicts/victims….
Do you understand that you no longer have the same aura, the same heritage and therefore the same possibilities to act, to give lessons?
the US like the West…
Quite frankly, I don’t really care much about what the rest of the world thinks about us. I care about us and our friends. You cannot satisfy everyone all the time. That’s a fact. The important thing is that we remain prosperous and strong. India, china, russia, much of Africa, et al, can go to hell.
Having said that, I firmly believe that we – the combined West – should stop all aid to other countries except those we can call friends. I’m sure that many who hate us would miss us very much … or rather, our money. Let the BRICS take control there. Those Third-World nations would see soon enough that being in cahoots with the devil is not so grand as they thought, as they get robbed and raped.
Making conjectures about me, my past, my wishes and desires don’t help your standpoint, Mr. Lorangebleue.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing to wish we had the sort of leaders that we had yesteryear, if they were good at what they were doing. This is not that case today, so my longing is understandable and even justified. Such feelings would not exist if I were even partially satisfied with what we have now.
Reagan and Trump are as alike as round and square. Reagan would never have questioned an election, would never split the Republican Party, and would never sniffle up to vicious, despicable dictators as the orange one likes to do. He also never questioned our NATO membership. Maybe you can come up with something more realistic. You obviously don’t know much about either men … or about me, for that matter.
Yes, I have no idea what that Republican love for Reagan is based on. He’s the one who introduced the “trickle-down” theory of economics, which George H.W. Bush aptly called “voodoo economics”.
(If you’re not familiar with how trickle-down economics works, that’s because it doesn’t.)
Reagan was the first celebrity president, then Republicans gave us George W. Bush, the idiot president, and then they came up with Trump, the celebrity idiot president.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=6599872640105263&set=g.1287991888516044
Reagan never called his economic policies “trickle down”. Be it as it may, the results were a mixed bag; not wholly bad and not wholly good.
“Reaganomics was regarded as a common-sense approach to the perception of stagflation and over-regulation that prevailed at the end of the Carter presidency. By reducing government spending and taxes, and making it easier to do business, President Reagan hoped to incentivize economic activity and reduce dependence on the government.
“These policies garnered reduced inflation, lower unemployment, and an entrepreneurial revolution that later became synonymous with the 1980s. However, detractors of Reagan’s policies claim that federal deficits grew, and the increased wealth gap increased the divide between the rich and the poor.”
But, my point about Reagan is not his economic policies, but his foreign ones. I know very well that he made some mistakes. What I liked about his performance was the evaporation of the Soviet Union. His increased arms spending and Star Wars project forced the SU to follow suit, which helped break its economic neck much quicker. Reagan was not a guy like Obama or Biden, who would’ve sat around with his thumbs up his ass, not in 2014 nor in 2022.
@OFP
(making conjectures for joking)
“Quite frankly, I don’t really care much about what the rest of the world thinks about us.”
However, it is a good strategy to survive or conquer 😉
I said most resembles but worse than Trump it is not humanly possible (even if Bush Jr. was also classified among the “empty heads”
Reagan was not known for being a hard worker.
for vice:, I don’t know which American leader is known to have responded when it was pointed out to him that he was allying with a dictator: “he may be a bastard but he’s our bastard!”
there must be two types of dictators: those you like and those who don’t…. (like many other people/countries, Americans are not angels)
I don’t believe that we should give up trying to influence others, but we must behave properly, not like rapists…
otherwise you say in substance: “I see noon at my door, I see the Ukrainians mistreated and the others I don’t care.” there must be Israelis who also think: “I am Israeli and the rest I don’t care”…. it must be called “having the nose in the handlebars” it is human, but it is not necessarily best behavior…
We are not all Israelis or Ukrainians, on the other hand we are all human beings with common constraints and interests broader than your groups of belonging and loyalty….
that the universal prevails over private interests seems more promising to me in the long term…
for future of all….
slava Ukraini and fraternity 😉
Believe it or not, Mr. Lorangebleue, but dictators are just like everyone else in that not all are completely evil and not all are good. There are this type, that type, and such types.