Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
He was told the discharge petition was going through, nothing else.
This is all performative.
Actually, he got briefings that changed his mind. Ukraine will finally get its massive stockpile of weapons which should alter the course of the current Russian momentum.
You do you, I'm certainly not going to believe he suddenly woke up, after half a year of straight up sabotage.
Wild story.
Reminds me of that Malcolm Caldwell,big time Pol Pot-supporter, went for a visit back in the days, and then was killed not long after.
These people did it to themselves, so whatever.
It feels too late to make much of a real difference anyway, Russia has gained the upper hand, the aid sent now is 6 months too late.
Why does NATO insists on torturing Ukraine? Either commit, or tell Ukraine that it is over.
But then, keeping Russia to the east of Dnipro seems to be the goal, not much more than that, so everything is going to plan, in that regard.
Why does NATO insists on torturing Ukraine? Either commit, or tell Ukraine that it is over.
But then, keeping Russia to the east of Dnipro seems to be the goal, not much more than that, so everything is going to plan, in that regard.
Would be the cue de grau of the post WW2 generation of the UK sending their children into WW3. Amazing to think you'd have grand parents and grand children connected by a common fight for survival, whilst the in-between generation go down in history as selfish degenerates that failed to build the world their parents fought for. Instead they just took us full circle.
Also, I imagine people who are desperate enough to sacrifice everything they have and risk death just to make it to the UK would probably jump at the chance to fight for the UK if we guaranteed them citizenship afterwards.
Then again, they might not belive that promise considering how we've abandoned many of those that fought along side us in our recent expeditions.
The actual text of the "Ukraine aid" portion of the bill (anyone here actually read it?) is farcical. Among other open admissions that it's nothing more than one final act of wealth transfer from taxpayers to the military industrial complex, there's a "stipulation" (with zero conseqences for ignoring it, as the Biden Admin will) that Biden has to produce an actual strategy for their Ukrainian project within 45 days of the bill being passed.
Here are some observations and questions that nobody in the media class will ever put to Jake Sullivan, Lloyd Austin or Joe Biden about this "stipulation" (for which, again, there are no consequences for ignoring - once they get the money, that's it, they have it):
1) Implicit in this '45 day' rule is that so far you haven't actually presented any strategy. Isn't it kind of insane that you're being given the money before you've presented a plan, rather than after it? Given that you're now 26 months into a war that you claim is existential for you?
2) Why 45 days and not 45 minutes? Is this again an admission that, despite what you say, you so far don't actually have a strategy? Why a month and a half to cobble something together? Is it because you know that 45 days from now everyone will have forgotten about this stipulation in the bill?
3) For 6 months now you've been chastising the "MAGA Republicans" for "sitting on this bill". But they told you from the outset that presenting a coherent strategy for your Ukrainian policy was a condition for getting the money. Why haven't you been working on this for the last half a year? You've been guilt-tripping "the MAGA Republicans" into passing the bill with fairytales of Putin marching through Europe if the 61 billion isn't handed over, but why haven't you been doing your job in the meantime by crafting the strategy they told you they needed? April 19th 2024 and you still don't have a clue what your strategy is, beyond funnelling more and more billions to your donors at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
It's always worth remembering that in Eisenhower's original prophetic warning about the military-industrial complex ("In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. - Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961), he used the term "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the role that the US Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. His warning has come to pass. Nobody with even a modicum of understanding about this war believes that this "61 billion for Ukraine" (it's nowhere close to that if you read the actual bill) is going to change the outcome for Ukraine. It's one last payday for the uniparty's sponsors. Here's Lloyd Austin just this last week stuttering through a basic question about what Ukrainian victory looks like before all but admitting Ukraine's entry into NATO is a pipe dream they've been stringing the Ukrainians along with:
The guy above asked why "NATO" (it's not NATO, it's the US and the UK) are "torturing Ukraine" like this. Money. That's why. Money. The transfer of poor people's taxes to rich people's bank accounts under the guise of "protecting their freedom". It's a tedious game they've played many times before. A few US shareholders are about to get a whole lot richer in the coming days and a lot of Ukrainians will continue to get a whole lot deader. Chuck Schumer said unequivocally in February, and I'm quoting, "If Ukraine gets this supplemental funding, they will win the war". Today, visibly delighted with his latest payday, he said, and I'm quoting, "Come the end of this fiscal year Ukraine is going to need more of our support". Numbers quoted are already another hundred billion locked in before the election. At this point, they're not even bothering to hide their bullshit.
Here are some observations and questions that nobody in the media class will ever put to Jake Sullivan, Lloyd Austin or Joe Biden about this "stipulation" (for which, again, there are no consequences for ignoring - once they get the money, that's it, they have it):
1) Implicit in this '45 day' rule is that so far you haven't actually presented any strategy. Isn't it kind of insane that you're being given the money before you've presented a plan, rather than after it? Given that you're now 26 months into a war that you claim is existential for you?
2) Why 45 days and not 45 minutes? Is this again an admission that, despite what you say, you so far don't actually have a strategy? Why a month and a half to cobble something together? Is it because you know that 45 days from now everyone will have forgotten about this stipulation in the bill?
3) For 6 months now you've been chastising the "MAGA Republicans" for "sitting on this bill". But they told you from the outset that presenting a coherent strategy for your Ukrainian policy was a condition for getting the money. Why haven't you been working on this for the last half a year? You've been guilt-tripping "the MAGA Republicans" into passing the bill with fairytales of Putin marching through Europe if the 61 billion isn't handed over, but why haven't you been doing your job in the meantime by crafting the strategy they told you they needed? April 19th 2024 and you still don't have a clue what your strategy is, beyond funnelling more and more billions to your donors at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
It's always worth remembering that in Eisenhower's original prophetic warning about the military-industrial complex ("In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. - Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961), he used the term "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the role that the US Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. His warning has come to pass. Nobody with even a modicum of understanding about this war believes that this "61 billion for Ukraine" (it's nowhere close to that if you read the actual bill) is going to change the outcome for Ukraine. It's one last payday for the uniparty's sponsors. Here's Lloyd Austin just this last week stuttering through a basic question about what Ukrainian victory looks like before all but admitting Ukraine's entry into NATO is a pipe dream they've been stringing the Ukrainians along with:
The guy above asked why "NATO" (it's not NATO, it's the US and the UK) are "torturing Ukraine" like this. Money. That's why. Money. The transfer of poor people's taxes to rich people's bank accounts under the guise of "protecting their freedom". It's a tedious game they've played many times before. A few US shareholders are about to get a whole lot richer in the coming days and a lot of Ukrainians will continue to get a whole lot deader. Chuck Schumer said unequivocally in February, and I'm quoting, "If Ukraine gets this supplemental funding, they will win the war". Today, visibly delighted with his latest payday, he said, and I'm quoting, "Come the end of this fiscal year Ukraine is going to need more of our support". Numbers quoted are already another hundred billion locked in before the election. At this point, they're not even bothering to hide their bullshit.
Last edited:
Can this guy be thread-banned?
He always post the same nonsense and when he gets thoroughly debunked he does absolutely nothing to respond to them. He is not interested in debate, just interested in pushing forward a blatantly false rhetoric.
A very long winded and repetative way of saying the money will go to defence contractors. No shit. The US doesn't have nationalised arms manufacturers. It's not some grand conspiracy.
I said it a few times. I dont think the US had been honest with Ukraine. I think that the goal was not saving Ukraine but bleeding out russia as much as possible without spilling US soldiers blood
At the same time FIFO the military stock and enrich themselves. It worked out. Now is a meh situation and too much of a comitment to revert the situation
May as well be a perma-ban since he only post in this thread
Don't be to hard on the guy, he's just doing his job.
Two posts in threads other than this.
A Navalny thread and... an Everton thread?
127/129 in this thread.
Everyone knows war is about winning the information battle in the 21st century. If you can convince Manchester United supports that Russia is the good guy, it’s plain sailing from there.Two posts in threads other than this.
A Navalny thread and... an Everton thread?
127/129 in this thread.
Maybe it's Andrei Kanchelskis.
I think it was more that US wants to maintain strategic stability. They don't want a collapsed Russia to deal with, they didn't want the risk of NATO getting pulled in hence the caution. Unfortunately that approach has prolonged the war, which played to Russian strengths and has given a chance for Russia to influence its friends in the US government.
Although happily this phase seems to be coming to and end (which must be absolutely crushing for Russian morale) and hopefully Ukraine can go finish this thing quickly now.
Bleeding out Russia is a win for the West but I don't think it was our goal, other than as a step to towards victory.
Yes, history repeating itself, it had happened previously in between the early to mid part of the 20th century.
Relief in 1918 after WW1 ending; then followed by Spanish Flue (pandemic 1918-1920), followed by further global conflict WW2 1939-45. The rise of Dictators in Europe (Hitler & Mussolini) by subsequently invading other countries, creating war conditions, etc.
The latter part of the 20th century bringing in the relief at the end of the 'Cold war', with the emergence in Russia of Gorbachev (with 'Perestroika' and 'Glasnost'). Generating the so called 'peace dividend' ...seemingly having been squandered (if it really did exist!).
Early part of 21st Century, similarities abound now; with the Covid (pandemic), and by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, etc....for the West (mainly US and Europe) with it suddenly finding it needs to re-arm.
It does seem that we really do not learn anything from history
They would only be subject to conscription to the armed forces, once they were domiciled here, i.e. citizens of the UK (or perhaps more correctly, subjects of the Crown).
Yes currently, but I understood that he suggested to grant citizenship for people who join the military voluntarily, not by conscription.
Our reputation on such matters over recent years has not been good so I wouldn't readily trust our government, and in any case citizenship usually comes first.
However the Gurkha's from Nepal, and some other commonwealth personnel serving with the British military are able to seek British citizenship by transferring to the wider army after five years, or after discharge applying for settlement and then naturalisation. I don't know all the details but I suspect it is assigned on an individual basis, similar to normal naturalisation applications.
Impressive grandstanding from the odious Marjorie Greene. Hit every populist note with a hammer without skipping a beat. She's quite charismatic when unchallenged; shame she's a lunatic.
Ukraine aid passes the House 311 : 112 : 1
More Republicans voted against (112) than for (101). All Democrats that voted were in favour.
More Republicans voted against (112) than for (101). All Democrats that voted were in favour.
Its a pretty good barometer of where the GOP is politically at the moment. Fortunately when you combine all the votes, its nearly 3 to 1 in favor.
Finally. History will judge the pro-Russia GOP extremists for stalling and opposing, hopefully not too much damage has been done.
Includes $8b in frozen Russian assets. Putin must be fuming.
She's melting down on CNN right now because a few members were waiving Ukrainian flags in the chamber as results were announced.
The amount of people against supporting Ukraine is totally baffling. Unsurprising considering ‘that side’ is so hellbent on being contrarian to literally anything that makes fecking sense, but it’s infuriating.
What's interesting is that Johnson seems to have outflanked Marge by making a trip to Mar-a-Lardo to kiss the ring. Trump then, instead of coming out against Ukraine aid, has been conspicuously silent which allowed more Republicans to vote for it without fear of MAGA retribution. Marge has now come out and said she won't ask for a motion to recall Johnson either. He's come out of this pretty unscathed while successfully passing a monumentally important bill.
61B is good amount, and very very welcome, but seeing how 40B was just enough to stall russian advance, I'm a tad sceptical as to how much success this will acutally bring on to battlefield in terms or regaining lost land, russians seems to be well dug in now in the lines they drew during Ukraine's counteroffensive.
Will be interesting to see where they go with this, russians will pay much heavier price now for any sort of advancement, but don't think that's going to stop them from trying, where as ukrainians, you would think, have learned from last spring to hoard and blow loads of supplies on counteroffensive.
Any info on what sort of weapons are coming in first aid package? Think Biden this week mentioned long range ATACMS, would be great if they would get those instead of something like 10 Abrams tanks.
Will be interesting to see where they go with this, russians will pay much heavier price now for any sort of advancement, but don't think that's going to stop them from trying, where as ukrainians, you would think, have learned from last spring to hoard and blow loads of supplies on counteroffensive.
Any info on what sort of weapons are coming in first aid package? Think Biden this week mentioned long range ATACMS, would be great if they would get those instead of something like 10 Abrams tanks.
What it will do is infuse Ukraine with the weapons it needs. Putin's entire calculous of Ukraine not getting anymore funding is now decimated and he will have to spend more dwindling money and resources he too is short of, to deal with what's coming at him. Russian propaganda have been pushing hard for this not to happen, which should tell us where Putin is coming from on the issue. The fact that the 8b in frozen assets is a part of it will also enrage him since it will now give Europe (where most of the rest of the asset money is held) to do the same.
Don't think he'd have banked on US not passing another aid package before Bidens term is up, it being delayed this long must've been stuff of dreams for him. His main priority will be seeing if Trump gets in though, that's got to be his main calculus.
ATACMS are specifically mentioned in the bill so at least some quantity of those will be transferred, I would also expect more GMLRS missiles for the M-142s and M-270s to go along with the ATACMS . But I expect that air defense missiles are at the top of the list, PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles for the Patriots and also short and mid range missiles like AMRAAM and Sidewinders for the NASAMS systems. Artillery ammunition and ATGMs for the ground forces to repell the Russian armored attacks are probably also very much needed at the moment. Drones are doing a decent job right now but they have their limitaions and are not nearly as effective as artillery and ATGMs
I wouldn't expect too many new weapon sytems delivered in the imidiate furure, ammunition replenishments and spare parts for the systems already in use are probably the biggest priority.
Would be nice if the EU does a similar financing, so that Ukraine finally can gain the momentum again.
Fair enough, 1st bit will consist mostly of AD missiles, MLRS rockets and shells, but it's bare minimum stuff, and russia just grinds this out.
But really, I'll be holding my face in a palm, if I see money wasted on sending another 10 abrams tanks.
Think any ideas of victory by overwhelming military advancement need to be shelved if not abandoned, and rather focus on supply line attrition. Saw on twitter 300 km ATACMS being mulled over, hopefully penny will drop with those finally.
The fcukers that voted against this should be named and shamed very publicly.
They already did.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/01/europe/eu-ukraine-funding-deal-intl/index.html
The problem is that very few EU countries have the stocks or the production capacity to be able to give any meaningful military assistance to Ukraine. Most countries in Europe abandoned their militaries and military industries in the past decades so even if they have the money there is very little equipment or ammuntion available to donate.