8BC Posted March 4 Posted March 4 (edited) 5 hours ago, LiquidSky said: Everything else aside are y'all actually ok with the executive branch taking the power of the purse from congress? These are fund legally approved and allocated by congress whether you support the cause or not. The action of cutting them off goes against everything in the constitution regarding division of power and seperate but equal branches. I had an issue with this as well, until a little actual reading of the underlying premise. Every Department in our government falls under the Executive Branch. As the President (CEO), every one of these Departments falls under his direct authority. The Checks & Balances is Congress has the authority to fund them or not. The CEO, E for Executive or President, has the guiding control of which direction they take. Congress (Legislative Branch) only gets to decide if the Executive Branch gets funded. Edited March 4 by 8BC Typo
VigilanteNav Posted March 4 Posted March 4 17 minutes ago, NKAWTG said: I don't understand why there is a reflexive need in the West to fight to the last Ukrainian. What can we do differently to coerce Russia without starting WWIII? Ukraine is not gaining back lost territory without more manpower, regardless of how many weapons we give them to test. You have to negotiate with Russia at some point, and Zelensky seems incapable of doing that. Solid analysis as always from the ISW that explains some deeper thoughts going on in Putin's nugget. Coupled with the fact that the Russian economy has transitioned into a wartime one that needs the war (or buildup to a future war) to continue in order to sustain its growth, Putin has just as much incentive to continue the war as to stop it. Even in a ceasefire deal, Russia will merely stop active fighting but continue to build up and regenerate the forces needed to invade again at a later date. Therefore, Zelensky wants security guarantees as part of the overall deal. Honestly, I think Zelensky knows they've lost the land that the Russians hold right now and he knows they will lose more and more as time goes on. But, he also knows that without any real security guarantees (UK/EU boots on the ground at least), any ceasefire deal with Putin ain't worth the paper its written on (as has been proven over and over again). Putin is Unlikely to Demobilize in the Event of a Ceasefire Because He is Afraid of His Veterans | Institute for the Study of War The summary: A near-constant state of military mobilization is therefore one of the least politically risky configurations for Putin. This dynamic will likely prompt Putin to maintain high levels of military readiness to simultaneously set conditions that would allow him to sustain a protracted or future war against Ukraine and/or prepare for a confrontation with NATO while minimizing the threat that Russian veterans may undermine his regime. US policymakers must take these Russian incentives into account when assessing Russia’s negotiating position, and when evaluating what propositions the Kremlin is likely to reject.
M2 Posted March 4 Posted March 4 OK, here's a few facts to consider. (Note, the following numbers are from AI and are not collaborated, but appear to be correct). First, this war doesn't come without a cost to Russia... According to recent estimates, since its start Russia has lost approximately 868,320 soldiers. Additionally, Russia has lost a substantial amount of military equipment, including 10,177 tanks, 21,157 armored fighting vehicles, and 370 aircraft. As of 2024, the Russian military is one of the largest in the world, with approximately 1.32 million active personnel and another 2 million in reserve. Do the math. I know we've all seen Enemy At The Gates and know it's been a historical tactic of the Russians to throw bodies into the fight at any cost; but this will have an impact. Ukraine has lost approximately 46,000 soldiers and around another 390,000 wounded. Currently, Ukraine's military consists of approximately 900,000 active and 1.2 million reserve personnel (I suspect the latter are now all "active!"). Again, do the math. Civilian casualties have also been substantial, with over 12,000 Ukrainian civilians killed. As of now, Russia still controls parts of the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, as well as Crimea, which it annexed in 2014. As of early 2025, the U.S. has committed approximately $128 billion in total aid to Ukraine, which includes around $71 billion in military assistance and the remainder being financial and humanitarian aid. The total aid from Europe since the war started amounts to approximately $198 billion. More math (and we all know the old saying about math in public!). Lastly, as of January 2025, the U.S. national debt stands at over $36.2 trillion. No math needed to know that's a very big number! So, is the intent of the Trump Administration to put this financial burden on those who will be greater impacted on the outcome (Europe)? Obviously. Just to keep things in perspective, over the past five years, the US has provided Israel with approximately $19 billion in military aid, part of a larger ten-year MOU signed in 2016, which pledges $38 billion in military assistance to Israel from 2019 to 2028. It will be interesting to see if the Trump Administration will cut that as well! One last, here is the top ten list of the countries that received the most U.S. foreign aid in 2024, from largest to smallest... Ukraine: $16.5 billion Ethiopia: $2 billion Jordan: $1.2 billion Democratic Republic of the Congo: $982 million Somalia: $1.1 billion Yemen: $1.1 billion Nigeria: $886.2 million Afghanistan: $1.2 billion South Sudan: $891.1 million Syria: $894.7 million These figures include both economic and military assistance. All included, it's approximately $68.2 billion in foreign aid for 2024. Can we afford it? Can we not?
Blue Posted March 4 Posted March 4 19 minutes ago, M2 said: OK, here's a few facts to consider. (Note, the following numbers are from AI and are not collaborated, but appear to be correct). First, this war doesn't come without a cost to Russia... According to recent estimates, since its start Russia has lost approximately 868,320 soldiers. Additionally, Russia has lost a substantial amount of military equipment, including 10,177 tanks, 21,157 armored fighting vehicles, and 370 aircraft. As of 2024, the Russian military is one of the largest in the world, with approximately 1.32 million active personnel and another 2 million in reserve. Do the math. I know we've all seen Enemy At The Gates and know it's been a historical tactic of the Russians to throw bodies into the fight at any cost; but this will have an impact. Ukraine has lost approximately 46,000 soldiers and around another 390,000 wounded. Currently, Ukraine's military consists of approximately 900,000 active and 1.2 million reserve personnel (I suspect the latter are now all "active!"). Again, do the math. Civilian casualties have also been substantial, with over 12,000 Ukrainian civilians killed. As of now, Russia still controls parts of the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, as well as Crimea, which it annexed in 2014. As of early 2025, the U.S. has committed approximately $128 billion in total aid to Ukraine, which includes around $71 billion in military assistance and the remainder being financial and humanitarian aid. The total aid from Europe since the war started amounts to approximately $198 billion. More math (and we all know the old saying about math in public!). Lastly, as of January 2025, the U.S. national debt stands at over $36.2 trillion. No math needed to know that's a very big number! So, is the intent of the Trump Administration to put this financial burden on those who will be greater impacted on the outcome (Europe)? Obviously. Just to keep things in perspective, over the past five years, the US has provided Israel with approximately $19 billion in military aid, part of a larger ten-year MOU signed in 2016, which pledges $38 billion in military assistance to Israel from 2019 to 2028. It will be interesting to see if the Trump Administration will cut that as well! One last, here is the top ten list of the countries that received the most U.S. foreign aid in 2024, from largest to smallest... Ukraine: $16.5 billion Ethiopia: $2 billion Jordan: $1.2 billion Democratic Republic of the Congo: $982 million Somalia: $1.1 billion Yemen: $1.1 billion Nigeria: $886.2 million Afghanistan: $1.2 billion South Sudan: $891.1 million Syria: $894.7 million These figures include both economic and military assistance. All included, it's approximately $68.2 billion in foreign aid for 2024. Can we afford it? Can we not? Not being snarky, but what exactly is your point?
M2 Posted March 4 Posted March 4 8 minutes ago, Blue said: Not being snarky, but what exactly is your point? Simply that there are many angles to this situation, yet a lot of people are emotionally polarized by it. Life isn't simple, and things change. What made sense three years ago may not make sense now. And dollars and lives are how we usually determine success or failure in war. 1
Blue Posted March 4 Posted March 4 All of the west has been awash in pro-Ukraine propaganda for years now. And it worked really well. Tons of money and supplies were sent to Ukraine over the past 3+ years, as a direct result of that propaganda campaign. Propaganda only goes so far though. Eventually, reality catches up. Most know this. Trump being elected is a direct product of this. Zelensky doesn't seem to get it, but maybe he's starting to learn his lesson.
DirkDiggler Posted March 4 Posted March 4 Interesting article. The Russia-Ukraine War: It Takes a Land Force to Defeat a Land Force
disgruntledemployee Posted March 4 Posted March 4 5 hours ago, VigilanteNav said: Solid analysis as always from the ISW that explains some deeper thoughts going on in Putin's nugget. Coupled with the fact that the Russian economy has transitioned into a wartime one that needs the war (or buildup to a future war) to continue in order to sustain its growth, Putin has just as much incentive to continue the war as to stop it. Even in a ceasefire deal, Russia will merely stop active fighting but continue to build up and regenerate the forces needed to invade again at a later date. Therefore, Zelensky wants security guarantees as part of the overall deal. Honestly, I think Zelensky knows they've lost the land that the Russians hold right now and he knows they will lose more and more as time goes on. But, he also knows that without any real security guarantees (UK/EU boots on the ground at least), any ceasefire deal with Putin ain't worth the paper its written on (as has been proven over and over again). Putin is Unlikely to Demobilize in the Event of a Ceasefire Because He is Afraid of His Veterans | Institute for the Study of War The summary: A near-constant state of military mobilization is therefore one of the least politically risky configurations for Putin. This dynamic will likely prompt Putin to maintain high levels of military readiness to simultaneously set conditions that would allow him to sustain a protracted or future war against Ukraine and/or prepare for a confrontation with NATO while minimizing the threat that Russian veterans may undermine his regime. US policymakers must take these Russian incentives into account when assessing Russia’s negotiating position, and when evaluating what propositions the Kremlin is likely to reject. Kinda hard to pay for all that military regeneration/growth when nobody buys your oil, well, except China. This is the kind of move I would like to see the EU to do. But they won't.
disgruntledemployee Posted March 4 Posted March 4 3 hours ago, Blue said: All of the west has been awash in pro-Ukraine propaganda for years now. And it worked really well. Tons of money and supplies were sent to Ukraine over the past 3+ years, as a direct result of that propaganda campaign. Propaganda only goes so far though. Eventually, reality catches up. Most know this. Trump being elected is a direct product of this. Zelensky doesn't seem to get it, but maybe he's starting to learn his lesson. Blah blah blah. I call bullshit. It's a simple principle called self defense. If you think self defense is propaganda, leave all your doors unlocked, welcome in the home invaders, show them where your valuables are, and which bedroom your wife is in. The only lesson Z learned is that Trump will not only not help, he'll go against UKR in favor of Russia. 1 2
Blue Posted March 4 Posted March 4 On 2/28/2025 at 3:29 PM, disgruntledemployee said: Maybe Zelinski thought through that chess and decided to pull that lever? His diplomacy answer was thought out enough. If you can't even spell the guys name right, it's very difficult to take you seriously.
disgruntledemployee Posted March 4 Posted March 4 1 minute ago, Blue said: If you can't even spell the guys name right, it's very difficult to take you seriously. That's all you got? Spellin? 1
tac airlifter Posted March 4 Posted March 4 9 hours ago, Banzai said: It’s not that hard. Many people on this forum have been exposed to literally near constant pro Russia propaganda for the past few years. This is just the natural result of that reality. I'd be happy to engage with you if you could answer one question: who blew up the Nordstream pipeline? 1
BashiChuni Posted March 4 Posted March 4 (edited) this is my problem with the ukraine situation. if the US hadn't been messing around in Ukraine, destabilizing governments, running coups, establishing bio labs, putting the crack head son of the Vice President on a Ukranian gas company's BOD, having the Vice President blackmailing Ukraine with 1 billion of USAID money... if all that wasn't happening and russia invaded...that's a clean kill...id be all for supporting them against russian "aggression". but the same government fucks that lied to us during covid and trampled the constitution in unprecedented ways are the same government fucks who were playing around in ukraine. i'm sorry but they burned ANY trust i have in them...they DO NOT get the benefit of the doubt. and i assume they have bad intentions. so when guys like chris murphy and other democrats cry wolf about protecting ukraine from the russians it rings on deaf ears. Edited March 4 by BashiChuni 4 1
BashiChuni Posted March 4 Posted March 4 (edited) There are many questions to be answered on our involvement in Ukraine. It’s not black and white. at first glance this seems good...securing biological agents...all for it. but what's the "modern, safe (key word that triggers my interest) and secure diagnostic health labrotory and a national NETWORK of epidemiological monitoring stations" part about? like @tac airlifter says sometimes the most lethal and dangerous programs are concealed with the most generic sounding names and labels. what's that all about? knowing how devious some of the federal power players like Fauci turned out to be during covid, i have a hard time believing our intentions setting up labs in ukraine were all rainbows and sunshine. Edited March 4 by BashiChuni
dream big Posted March 4 Posted March 4 1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said: That's all you got? Spellin? Holding Ukraine accountable for the billions of tax payer dollars we have given them isn’t “Pro Russia,” good lord when did you leftists become so anti peace? I thought that was your mojo back in early 2000s. Also this Trump pro Russia nonsense was tried in 2016, failed then and will fail again. You all will never learn, hence why Trump destroyed Kamala who would have had this country on its knees pissing away money so Zelensky doesn’t have to actually have an election and potentially lose his grasp on power. Let’s see your tone when Zelensky comes crawling back because there are literally no other executable options than to rely on the United States. No longer do we have a kick me sign on our back under the blithering half wit. 1 2 1
StoleIt Posted March 4 Posted March 4 The "Zelensky is a dictator/wont hold an election" talking point is taken in such bad faith. It's in their constitution. Also, how does one hold a free and fair election while a significant amount of their population/territory is occupied? How do you account for citizens of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson? I'd imagine they are all voting pro-Putin right now. Not saying there isn't a lot of valid criticism you can throw at this conflict, our involvement, and Zelensky...but "he is a dictator because he suspended elections" is one of the more idiotic talking points. 3
BashiChuni Posted March 4 Posted March 4 15 minutes ago, StoleIt said: Not saying there isn't a lot of valid criticism you can throw at this conflict, our involvement, and Zelensky... i don't disagree about the election point. this is a good step in the right direction...at the start of the conflict ANY dissent and you were labeled "pro putin". at least now some are acknowledging that this conflict is complicated and problematic. much like during COVID...any push back on mandatory vaccines, masking, natural immunity effectiveness, or social distancing and you "wanted grandma to die" and instantly labeled "anti vaccine" and "conspiracy theorist". the messaging propaganda used is the tell that you're on the wrong side
MCO Posted March 4 Posted March 4 36 minutes ago, BashiChuni said: i don't disagree about the election point. this is a good step in the right direction...at the start of the conflict ANY dissent and you were labeled "pro putin". at least now some are acknowledging that this conflict is complicated and problematic. much like during COVID...any push back on mandatory vaccines, masking, natural immunity effectiveness, or social distancing and you "wanted grandma to die" and instantly labeled "anti vaccine" and "conspiracy theorist". the messaging propaganda used is the tell that you're on the wrong side The real progress made is people have successfully made the talking point it’s ok to invade another country and take their land if you don’t like their government, even if they don’t pose a direct threat to you. 1 1
gearhog Posted March 4 Posted March 4 (edited) 3 hours ago, StoleIt said: The "Zelensky is a dictator/wont hold an election" talking point is taken in such bad faith. It's in their constitution. Also, how does one hold a free and fair election while a significant amount of their population/territory is occupied? How do you account for citizens of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson? I'd imagine they are all voting pro-Putin right now. Not saying there isn't a lot of valid criticism you can throw at this conflict, our involvement, and Zelensky...but "he is a dictator because he suspended elections" is one of the more idiotic talking points. Wrong. I've covered this multiple times in this thread. Ypu're regurgitating something you saw on the internet without even bothering to verify it. Their "constitution" was abridged in 2015 by a statutory law that allows them to suspend elections in a time of war. After the coup. The original constitution was not written with a provision for suspending elections under "Martial Law". Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Ukraine Just because a document outlining a system of government is called a "constitution" does not mean it is in the same class or category as the US Constitution. As I said before, we held elections during the Civil War and WWII, two of the most consequential conflicts in our nation's history, and we were better off for it. A democracy isn't just about people voting for frivolous policies about what potholes get filled or where people can smoke weed. A true democracy exists when a nation's citizens can decide the direction of their country in it's most important and pivotal moments. The Ukrainian people are denied the opportunity to decide if their citizens continue to die. Don't speak of idiocy while also not knowing the history of martial law in Ukraine. 2 hours ago, MCO said: The real progress made is people have successfully made the talking point it’s ok to invade another country and take their land if you don’t like their government, even if they don’t pose a direct threat to you. No one here ever said it's ok. You can understand something without condoning it. Another BS Straw Man fallacy argument. The world is full of crimes and injustices and we simply do not have the money and resources to correct them all. And they're not all a direct threat to us. Shit happens. And don't play it up as if you're hyper-sensitive to the plight of Ukrainians. Like most of those wringing their hands over how a sacrosanct piece of foreign dirt got trampled upon, you'll argue for 200+ online discussion forum pages about what a tragedy this is while not doing anything of substance to help. You even have the means and ability yourself to help Americans suffering within a few miles of you. Think about how much of that you're doing. It's all virtue-signalling and no substance. Check out the concept of "Suicidal Empathy" in Gad Saad's upcoming book. You can be manipulated to become so deeply empathetic to a cause while having absolutely zero first-hand exposure to it, that you'll knowingly or unknowingly harm yourself for its benefit. Edited March 5 by gearhog 1 2
gearhog Posted March 5 Posted March 5 (edited) Zelensky bends the knee. Makes public concessions after his meeting with Trump and says he’s “ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership.” Please whine about it and cope below 👇 Edited March 5 by gearhog
VigilanteNav Posted March 5 Posted March 5 14 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said: Kinda hard to pay for all that military regeneration/growth when nobody buys your oil, well, except China. This is the kind of move I would like to see the EU to do. But they won't. Another interesting analysis of what's going on in Putin's nugget that is putting pressure on him. Why Putin is finally negotiating – POLITICO To your point, the EU has a lot of room for improvement in order to ramp up the financial pressure on him. Such as this... France warms to idea of seizing Russian assets in Europe – POLITICO Although I don't agree with our freeze on military aid, that could just be the final nudge that the UK/EU needed to fully go all in on their support.
VigilanteNav Posted March 5 Posted March 5 Regarding the history of Ukraine that many on here are attempting to skew. Putin could have very likely executed the "coup" in Ukraine in 2014... The Stubborn Legend of a Western 'Coup' in Ukraine If you haven't watched this yet, highly recommend as well.. Looking further back, the Ukrainians had successful revolutions before so it wasn't like 2014 was a new thing. See the Orange Revolution of 2004 (in which Putin had the pro-Western candidate poisoned btw). And if all that doesn't cause you to think about why the Ukrainians on the whole would want to align with the West and not Russia, think about how the average US citizen votes..."it's the economy stupid". The EU's GDP dwarfs Russia's, always has, always will. Italy's alone is bigger than Russia's to put it into perspective. Hence: quoting from the FP article: The Maidan mass protests—which lasted from November 2013 to February 2014 in Kyiv and many other cities across Ukraine—erupted when Yanukovych pivoted from a wide-ranging association agreement with the European Union to a similar one with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union. If you still want to go with the CIA funded the coup through USAID angle. think about why an average human being would want to go sit out in the dead of winter for months and months on end and eventually at the risk of getting beaten to a pulp, shot, etc? They'd do that because some 'pro-western" office was stood up in their cities and towns and they just wandered into it and said what do you offer? Or, might it be a bit more likely they were fed up with a Russian influenced economy that was leaving them with no options for a better future? 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now