Zelenskyy meets brick wall of Putin-backing Republicans
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had little success in his attempt to sway congressional Republicans to stop their obstruction of aid to his country in its fight against Russia’s invasion. Zelenskyy tweeted that he had “a friendly and candid conversation” with members of the Senate, in which he informed them “about Ukraine’s current military and economic situation, the significance of sustaining vital U.S. support, and answered their questions.”
The GOP senators, ridiculously, wanted Zelenskyy to instead talk to them about their reason for blocking that aid: the U.S. border. “Multiple senators indicated that Republicans raised border security in questions to the war-time leader,” Politico reported, “but said that Zelenskyy didn’t directly address it.” And why the hell would he? That’s not why he was there, and he’s been kind of too busy leading the fight against the Russians to bone up on the nuances of U.S. immigration policy.
“If he gets the help he needs, he will win,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters after the meeting. “If we lose, Putin wins—and this will be very, very dangerous for the United States.” He added that Zelenskyy made it clear that “He needs the aid quickly.”
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, once Ukraine’s staunchest supporter, wasn’t moved .
“We know the threats we face are intertwined — that Russia and China and North Korea work together to undermine America and the West,” he said on the floor after the meeting.
“We know that our border, just like Ukraine's borders and Israel's and Taiwan’s, must be inviolable,” McConnell continued. “That's why for months now, we've supported supplemental action on all four of the most pressing national security challenges we face,” he said.
Zelenskyy did not have better luck with House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said in a statement following their meeting that while he’s supportive of Ukraine’s mission, the “first condition on any national security supplemental spending package is about our own national security first.”
“From the very beginning, when I was handed the gavel, we needed clarity on what we're doing in Ukraine and how we'll have proper oversight of the spending of precious taxpayer dollars, and we needed a transformative change at the border. Thus far we've gotten neither,” Johnson said, calling the border an “absolute catastrophe.”
Aid to Ukraine—and to Israel and Taiwan, which is also included in the supplemental spending bill—depends on Senate Republicans making concessions on their immigration demands. That’s not happening any time soon. McConnell made it official at the Senate GOP’s luncheon Tuesday, telling his team to punt it until January. Merry Christmas, Vladimir Putin! Moscow Mitch just gave you Ukraine.
Tags
Who is online
656 visitors
What the Republicans are saying to Ukraine is "we know your house is on fire, but we wont send the fire department to put it out unless you agree to put up a new fence in our back yard". Things that have nothing to do with one another.
This is about more than Ukraine or the US southern border. It is also about right wingers indifference concerning authoritarian leaders like Putin. Some of them even admire the heck out of him.
It's not Ukraine's responsibility to control America's borders, it's the Democrats. Since they refuse, and the Biden admin fights any enforcement every step of the way, Republicans are prioritizing the needs of America over Ukraine. A competent politician would be able to work out a compromise. Sadly for Ukraine, Biden is not and prioritizes illegal immigration and kow towing to his base over everything else.
Once again, the two issues are not related, and you claiming that they are doesnt make it so. We could both help Ukraine and do something with the border (or not do something with the border). The idea that denying Ukraine help is in service to a priority doesnt even make any sense. Imagine if in the mid 60's one group of congressmen said "we are going to prioritize civil rights legislation over defense expenditures in Viet Nam ." Everyone would look at them like they were nuts. You do both.
Once again, the two issues are not related
Biden tied them together
Surely you must understand the way things in Washington works in order to get things done. Not saying it is right or wrong only that it happens all the time. Why does it seem to be OK when one side does it and when the other side does it people act like it is the first time it has ever happened?
How much money is enough, how much equipment is enough? Does everyone know that before Zelensky took the top spot in Ukraine, he starred in a comedy series. Billions of dollars and equipment have been gifted to Zelensky and Ukraine by more countries than just the United States.
Zelensky is dedicated to Ukraine, of that I have no doubt, I admire it .. yet the top military dude says they are in a stalemate with Russia [Zelensky could not handle the truth]. The grant summer counteroffensive failed, winter is here'ish, and Russia is dug in deep. Crimea is a foregone conclusion - Donbas region maybe gone as well .. Billions of dollars will not suddenly help Ukraine kick Russia out, but billions of dollars with pay Zelensky and Ukraine's bills ..
How is Russia in anyway a threat to the United States .. will Putin [isn't he dead?] take Alaska, storm the southern border, then Canada and parachute into the United States like in Red Dawn? The only way Russia is a threat to the United States is if China or Iran attacks Americans abroad. ... so far the strikes from Iran and militant groups targeting the US military positions have been done so quite delicately.
Zelensky has bills to pay, and money actually needs to be sent to Ukraine - but not in the form of Billions at this time..
Peace...
What you are forgetting is billions of dollars to Ukraine will help keep their corruption machine their running smoothly; including kick backs to politicians here; their family members, and major campaign contributors.
As for Russia. They are sending raw recruits to the front. They are using tanks that were decommissioned decades ago. They are having to buy weapons and munitions from North Korea, China, and Iran. They use to be the #2 arms seller in the world behind the US; but not any more. They will need to spend years reequipping and retraining their military (maybe they will finally get generals that will figure out air superiority wins modern wars and rebalance their military appropriately). The only threat they pose to the US or NATO is nuclear.
Sending any money to Ukraine is a waste of US resources. Ukraine has nothing we need. It is just another US/NATO effort to isolate Russia further- and put a massive NATO country on their border. If the EU wants Ukraine that badly- they can finance and supply it militarily.
Nah, I covered that... or I guess hinted at it when I said: " Billions of dollars will not suddenly help Ukraine kick Russia out, but billions of dollars with pay Zelensky and Ukraine's bills .. "
I have been asking these very questions, how can Russia be so weakened - yet are whooping Ukraine's ass if we do not send more money? Why is Germany raising the alarms on a Russian threat. I do not see how NATO countries can be attacked by Russia if Ukraine does not defeat or push Russia out of their borders.
Even with the threat of nukes, I do not think that Russia would come through on that threat, Putin knows the United States agreed to protect Ukraine against a nuke attack when they gave up Soviet era nukes.
As far as arms manufacturing, US sanctions have destroyed the Russian economy - yet still they fight .. both Ukraine and Russia are struggling when it comes to battle ready soldiers.
I have a feeling that part of the plan all along has been to get military powers to start depleting their weapon reserves. To what end I do not know .. for all we know Russia could have a stockpile of weapons in reserve. Russia does have friends China, Iran, NK and even possibly India and Pakistan. The US cannot trust Turkey, who knows where their loyalties lie .. and they have a large well-trained military. We know China has their own ambitions.
I sort of disagree .. since the coop in 2014, Ukraine has been begging to become a member of the EU, now begging to be a member of NATO since the EU will not take them .. the EU will only assist in order to keep the bear at bay.
Biden thinks he is a foreign relations guru - perhaps at one time he was, but right now I am not so sure .. look how he has allowed Iran to thrive .. 'we' all see the consequences of that in Israel and Ukraine.
Peace...
Russia is in the defense while Ukraine is trying to go forward and take back lost territory. Offense is much harder, standard US force ratio is 3 : 1 meaning we want 3 X the force as the defender has. It is probably more like 4 : 1 or even 5 : 1 in the Ukraine since the Russians have very heavily mined the probable axes of advance. Dense minefields have to be cleared at significant risk. While clearing a minefield you are very vulnerable not only to the mines, but also artillery, armed helicopters, etc. If the lanes cleared aren't wide enough and your lead vehicle get knocked out, the other vehicles trying to maneuver around them hit mines.
We are sending much money, we are sending dated military equipment and ammo.
I get all of that, I have been saying that by the time the summer counteroffensive started Russia was too entrenched for it to be successful. Fighter jets could be the answer, but ....... Russia is dug in deep. Ukraine needs boots on the ground .. they have fought hard and accomplished a great deal, but ultimately 'I think' it will take a bit more than the Ukrainian military to rid Ukraine of Russia
I know about the money, but I do not think Ukraine is getting all outdated equipment and ammo .. Ukraine was well equipped for the summer counteroffensive. Or is that all smoke and mirrors when the government says what Ukraine is being sent?
Depends on the comparison. For armored fighting vehicles, we been send M2A2-ODS-SA variants, or early 1990's production plus even older M-113s. The US tanks are refurbished M1A1's while are troops use the M1A2. We also sent T-72 captured Russian tanks. Artillery includes M109A6 Paladin from 1994. That;s not to say that the equipment isn't good, but it's equipment that the Army wants to divest regardless of the Ukrainian war.
Wasn't there something about the learning curve if Ukraine was sent newer tanks? I will have to research, but it seems to me that was a thing - no time to adequately train Ukrainian soldiers.
As long as the artillery, ammo and weapons have been stored correctly they should be good. The Kurds used WWII era weapons to defeat Daesh in Kobani .. beat Daesh back in Erbil and still managed to make a path for the Yazidi to get off the mountain .. I always back the Kurds in a fight!
Thanks for the info on the equipment .. much appreciated.
Yes, in some cases the older equipment could be provided faster and required less training. Everything is a matter of trade offs. My only point that from an US military perspective, there are several advantages of us equipping the Ukraine.
Republicans are terrible at appearing objective with their nakedly backwards maneuvering. Can’t get what you want? Blackmail those who are standing in the way and claim it’s not you that’s the problem. Can’t keep your party together enough to elect a speaker? Blame democrats for not stepping in to bail out your wildly dysfunctional caucus by voting to keep one of the most incompetent speakers in the country’s history.
I do not think there is any blame going around except from perhaps McCarthy himself .. albeit the party of (D) could have assisted in getting a more moderate (R) as speaker. Just think Ukraine could have had billions already in their hands - but it is all about power on both sides of the aisle. Now Johson is the speaker .. that is due in part to (D)s not compromising, that is reality, not blame.
Johnson is learning his job quickly - he must have been studying when no one was looking...? .. an election denier and a bible thumper go figure .. my head may never stop shaking.
Why should the D's help McCarthy? Sure sounds like blame to me. We're convenient scapegoats though because the republicans blame us for all their fuckups. Projection.
Johnson is a freakshow who doesn't belong in the White House period, much less Speaker of the House. He was a part of the failed coup/insurrection/election denying freakshow!
Never said they should have .. reread what I wrote.
I did not get him elected, talk to the (D)s about that.
We didn't get that freakshow elected either, re-read what I wrote.
I do not have to reread it .. and yes, the (D)s bear some responsibility, far more established and moderate (R)s tried for speaker .. just a few more votes could have gotten them elected.
I am not going to go back and forth with in you ..
Have a nice day
No, we bear no responsibilities whatsoever for the republicans fuck ups, no matter how many times you say it,
That must be due to a guilty conscience. Are you saying the D's could not have kept McCarthy in if they chose to do so? Not if they should have but could they have if they chose to.
Hey, Chuck Schumer, you've said that failing to write a blank check to Soviet Ukraine means Putin wins. Well, Chuckie, the more important question is what would the United States lose? Ukraine was joined at the hip with Russia for 100 years. The United States didn't need Ukraine then. So, why is Ukraine so damned important to the United States now?
Schumer has made a career out of selling out the United States. It's always been about the money. And now Zelensky has more influence over Democrats than the people of the United States.
Putin backing Republicans?
Hilarious!
The gop capitulating to Putin on Ukraine is not funny...
Agreed …. If that was actually happening but since it isn’t … please stop trying to gaslight that it is.