There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

White House warns Congress the US is out of money, nearly out of time to avoid 'kneecap' to Ukraine

The Biden administration on Monday sent Congress an urgent warning about the need to approve tens of billions of dollars in military and economic assistance to Ukraine, saying Kyiv’s war effort to defend itself from Russia’s invasion may grind to a halt without it.

In a letter to House and Senate leaders and also released publicly, Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young warned the U.S. will run out of funding to send weapons and assistance to Ukraine by the end of the year, saying that would “kneecap” Ukraine on the battlefield.

She added that the U.S. already has run out of money that it has used to prop up Ukraine’s economy, and “if Ukraine’s economy collapses, they will not be able to keep fighting, full stop.”

mydude ,

One more billion should do it.

Treczoks ,

The Republicans were always Putins best friends in the US. Trumps admiration for dictators didn’t help it either.

PersnickityPenguin ,

Hey I’ve got an idea, let’s drag the Ukraine war out another 2 decades and see how much death and destruction that can continue to fester.

I’m sure it won’t lead to millions of angry, broken men who will never be able to feel integrate with society and cause a spiraling of violence and crime throughout Europe and the world reverberating for decades into the future.

Oh, and drug use and homelessness. Almost forgot about that, silly me.

Burn_The_Right ,

Well, we could end this horror-show tomorrow by turning Moscow into a sheet of glass.

Let’s call Vlad Puta’s bluff and see how many of his 50 year old ICBM’s even make it out of their silos, much less to a target. They are widely thought to be ill-maintained, looted by a very active military black market, and old as shit. Add to that our space and air defense spending, and I’m betting the only country that would experience any Russian radiation would be Russia.

avrachan ,

actively calling for nuclear war because you are not entertained by the ongoing war - very cool.

Burn_The_Right ,

Defending Russia because you are entertained by children, elderly and non-combatants being tortured, raped and murdered - very cool.

avrachan ,

where did I defend Russia. Also if you think Ukraine and USA don’t torture, rape and murder innocent civilians I don’t know what to tell you.

Burn_The_Right ,

And where did I mention being entertained or not by a war? Yet you pretended I was calling for an attack on Russia for my own entertainment.

Your post history defends Putin over and over again, so you can fuck smooth off with that fake, smug conservative bullshit. I am not fooled by your insincere, bad faith troll arguments, blyat.

avrachan ,

oh I’m so sorry I tried to fool a wise intelligent person like yourself.

I’ll go back to Russia since you have outed me so badly, also thanks for typing that Russian word - a language I obviously know.

Burn_The_Right ,

No problem. Always happy to help.

nutsack ,

again I contemplate renouncing my US citizenship in order to not contribute financially to any of this

tpyoman ,

Can I have it? The 142 year waitlist for my green card has been less than easy.

nutsack ,

yea sure

interceder270 ,

We can start by stopping aid to Israel. They have enough wealth to fund their own genocides.

They have a fucking Intel fab.

CleoTheWizard ,
@CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world avatar

I’ll admit, I had this thought earlier about why do they even need our money? I haven’t heard of them fighting much of anyone since the first week of this. Mostly leveling the entirety of Gaza so that they can take it over. So the US is not only paying for genocide, we’re also paying for a construction project basically.

Maybe someone who knows can chime in but what is the money for? Is it for more weapons similar to Ukraine? Are we trying to profit off of a genocide?

wahming ,

We aren’t giving them actual cash. Israel is an excuse to fund the local Military Industrial Complex. Money goes to MIC and their lobbyists, weapons go to Israel.

PRUSSIA_x86 ,

A lot of it isn’t actually money. The US keeps a massive stockpile of weapons and equipment in storage in Isreal. The government hands over the keys to a few trucks and some parts, then writes it off as $X value in military hardware.

CleoTheWizard ,
@CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world avatar

That’s what I was afraid of. It’s one thing to give aid to a genocidal nation, it’s a complete other thing for you to supply them with bombs and ammo and try to make a dollar off of it. It’s all so disgusting.

SCB ,

I haven’t heard of them fighting much of anyone since the first week of this

Israel has around 2500 total casualties. Most deaths are lumped from the initial attack (around 1200). Approximately 400 soldiers have been killed, the rest are wounded.

Pipoca ,

Israel has been involved in several wars against multiple other nations - for example, in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, it was invaded by Egypt, Syria, and a coalition that included Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Cuba, Jordan, etc.

Israel is located at a fairly strategic location. Britain and France used Israel during the Suez crisis to stage an attack against Egypt over control of the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal is one of the most important global trade routes.

US support of Israel is a combination of funding American arms dealers and wanting Israel as a strategicly located partner. That’s why we fought proxy wars with the soviet union over it like the Yom Kippur war. The aid is intended not to fight Hamas, but to keep Israel strong against e.g. Iran and other neighbors. They’ve had peace with Egypt for decades, but that might be more because of Israel being strong enough to not be worth attacking.

I doubt Biden personally supports the Gaza war, but a lot of this stuff is more about realpolitik and strategic concerns than anything else.

dubyakay ,

Sounds like Intel is a good pressure target

MeanEYE ,
@MeanEYE@lemmy.world avatar

People tried to boycott Israel-made products and then realized there are far too many of them.

foggenbooty ,

More like people tried to boycott Israel and the US (land of the free) made it illegal.

neeshie ,

I’ve successfully boycotted Israel (I’m broke and I’m not buying anything)

BarterClub , (edited )

Should not have given all that money to Israel. And now they want more tax money. Ugh

edit: typo

interceder270 ,

You’re joking, but zionists really believe this.

BarterClub ,

Sorry, looked bad. There was a missing ‘not’.

Should not have given all that money to Israel. And now they want more tax money. Ugh

Linkerbaan ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

LOL what happened to all the articles saying Russia was Donezo two year ago? America is Donezo.

interceder270 ,

Just a generation getting first-hand experience with being manipulated by propaganda.

You know who wants more weapons for Ukraine? Those profiting off of the military-industrial complex.

bibliotectress ,

Probably also the country of Ukraine, our ally that was invaded by Russia.

zenitsu ,

~5% of the US’s military budget worth of mostly old equipment was enough to halt Ruzzia. But keep coping all you want vatnik.

BombOmOm ,
@BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

It’s embarrassing we haven’t yet gotten a military/Ukraine funding bill through two months ago.

interceder270 ,

What’s embarrassing is the sunk-cost fallacy people are applying to Ukraine.

It seems most people on these forums legitimately believed Ukraine would blaze past Russia in their counteroffensive after getting Western weapons. When that didn’t happen, nobody came out and said “we were wrong.” It’s just doubling-down, lol.

It’s sad how many people legitimately believe the outcome of this war is already decided in Ukraine’s favor. Just shows how effective propaganda is at making people believe fantasies.

rbesfe ,

The outcome is still very much undecided, which is why it’s so important that we give Ukraine all the aid we can

prole ,

“Sunk cost” isn’t applicable because human lives don’t have a fucking price.

interceder270 ,

I don’t think you understand what the fallacy is if you think that’s the case.

If Ukraine loses, then what good has all their aid actually done?

echodot ,

Ukraine don’t need to beat Russia they simply need to make the war so painful that they withdraw it’s not like they have to counter invade

TallonMetroid ,
@TallonMetroid@lemmy.world avatar

Well, for one, Russia will have been forced to expend a shitton of lives and war materiel, and will be forced to expend a shitton more putting down the resultant Ukrainian insurgency. Crippling the Russian military for a generation is no small thing.

MediciPrime ,

The Russian military is now stronger than before the war started. So is their damn ruble. We were fed and are still being fed a bunch of malarkey.

SupraMario ,

Lol no they are not, please provide sources for this. Cause it’s not true at all. RU is in serious trouble.

zenitsu ,

Only malarkey here is your comment, their military and the ruble are in shambles.

alienanimals ,

Lol is reading a simple chart too difficult for you? https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ddb9f185-e6a5-49a3-b9c5-cf7f7b79681b.png

Suspicious , (edited )

The moment people realised Ukraine didn’t get immediately steamrolled pretty much everyone who does war analysis profesionaly that I saw were saying this would be a pretty long war that could go either way

interceder270 ,

That’s fair, all of them thought Ukraine would get wrecked and now they’re saying Ukraine doesn’t have a chance.

SCB ,

The less the outcome is already decided, the more I support giving them money.

I think it’s weird you’d find the opposite to be true.

interceder270 ,

I think it’s weird you’d find the opposite to be true.

Probably because you don’t understand the sunk-cost fallacy.

SCB ,

It’s already been explained that this is not a sunk-cost situation. The US hasn’t even given very much to Ukraine, in terms of total military expenditure

avrachan ,

people think that prolonging this war regardless of the human sufferings in Ukraine is fine as long as it is not good for Russia.

A ceasefire and truce would save countless Ukrainian lives. But obviously it’s not very cool - fighting to the last man and woman Hitler style is cool and fun to cheer on from far away.

TurboHarbinger ,

Classic US. Overspends and forces a debt they will not end up paying. Instead, the US will probably end up with several land/mining rights from Ukraine and maybe Russia, since they won’t be able to pay either.

tastysnacks ,

Hmm Russia’s got oil. We like oil.

RedSuns ,

Chappelle’s Show - Black Bush (ft. Jamie Foxx)

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

What about us Americans struggling in our economy?

Reality_Suit ,

That’s just old fashioned capitalism. You’ll never win.

Aurenkin ,

Hmm, maybe it’s time to stop passing trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the 1%?

Restaldt ,

No no i think we can get blood out of this stone if we try hard enough

themeatbridge ,

By any capitalist measure, the economy is doing great. If you’re struggling, maybe reconsider supporting a system that doesn’t care about how well you’re doing as long as profits are up.

BraveSirZaphod , (edited )
@BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social avatar

The money spent on Ukraine has been essentially pennies relative to any significant domestic program.

If you instead redistributed all the $113 billion spent since the invasion began in 2022, you could give each American a grand total of $340. A nice chunk of change, to be sure, but spread out over the course of the war, this is literally $15 a month.

Personally, I'm okay having $340 less over the course of nearly two years if the alternative is tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians and Russia successfully re-asserting that violent conquest will not be resisted. Moldova would almost certainly be invaded next as well, since they're not in NATO. $15 a month is a pretty damn cheap price to pay to protect a democracy and save countless lives (not to mention, the torture and rape the Russian army has been committing as well)

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

Do you feel the same way about every other conflict in this world or just the one in Europe? What about spending money to prevent the conflict in Africa (Ethiopia) or in Asia (Myanmar)? Will you be willing to pay higher taxes to fight off the drug cartels in Central and South America?

We got all these issues here in the US. Homelessness, gun violence, drug overdoses, overcrowded prisons, massive personal debt (student loans, car, credit card), etc. I don’t care to arm another nation and play proxy war.

BraveSirZaphod ,
@BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social avatar

Well, we do already fund a ton of foreign aid all over the world, so quite a lot of that is already happening. But to address those particular things: homelessness is not a problem where simply throwing money at it magically solves it; it's incredibly complex. New York City alone spends 3.5 billion dollars a year just on homelessness. The only financial solution to gun violence is to bribe the SCOTUS to repeal DC v. Heller. Drug policy is largely in the hands of the states, but even then, there's no simple solution to it, particularly when you have to deal with local politics for things like treatment facilities. Prisons are largely state operated. Personal debt is largely outside the scope of the federal government, but even then, student loan forgiveness was attempted. But to throw a number at it, redirecting all Ukraine aid towards individual credit card debt would pay for only 10% of it.

Are there particular federal programs of comparable financial impact with sufficient political support that you think would pay significant returns if boosted by foreign aid money (ignoring the general decline in global stability that would ensue).

Will you be willing to pay higher taxes to fight off the drug cartels in Central and South America?

I mean, the economic dividends there are obvious. If it really was as simple as throwing some money at Central and South America in order to make the cartels vanish forever and turn those countries into stable countries that we could do significant trade with, we'd earn far more than we paid. But that price tag doesn't actually exist, because these problems are more complicated than simply throwing money at them.

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

I didn’t make my point clear in the previous post so I’ll state my stance. I don’t really care to send money to Ukraine so they can fight their war. I think maybe a good percentage of Americans would feel the same (mostly republicans). I don’t have the same reasons as they have however. When I indicated the money is better spent here I was referring to lowering my taxes. I know that the money to Ukraine won’t even lower my taxes by 0.01% and the real money sink is military and social security but the optics don’t look good in my eyes.

Take the perspective of the other side. “I’m paying all this money in taxes, my roads are bad, crime from the drugs are around my corner, my job ain’t covering all my expenses like it used to. And those people in Washington are giving money to the Europeans so they can fight a war!”

Lemonstealingwhore ,

They could stop funding Ukraine and have Ukraine somehow pay back everything today and none of those issues would be fixed. Road maintenance and local crime are state/county responsibilities so they’re not impacted by the Ukraine war or funding at all. Your job wages, unless tied to the defense industry, aren’t going to be tied to this war at all and if they were, you most likely wouldn’t be complaining about your expenses. Another side of the expenses argument would be inflation, but that’s not impacted by the Ukraine war either.

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

You didn’t get my point in that post. I have issues in my life and around my city that I’m concerned with. I listed some of those issues in the previous post. Nowhere in there is Ukraine. Yet instead of addressing the issues I face or, more importantly, the average American faces the government is sending money to Ukraine. Taxpayer’s money, our money. If I could choose where my tax dollars went (federal, state, and local) none of it would go to Ukraine. A good portion of Americans would do the same.

The user who replied to one of my comments said that throwing money at some of these issues won’t solve it. Throwing billions at some of those issues and funding well run projects will absolutely make a difference. They said that most of the problems I talk about are local and state as if federal spending cannot be diverted to the local and state. Haven’t we been complaining for years about how underpaid our educators are? Aren’t they important. The billions given to Ukraine could have been given to them and I would 100% support that.

You also said that some of my examples, road maintenance and local crime, are state/county responsibilities. You don’t think that those topics are subject to federal funding? The feds aid in fighting crime at all levels, not just federal level. The feds give money to states and cities all the time to fund infrastructure. One of the policies that Biden ran on was IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE. Did you think he meant only federal roads and bridges?

So yeah the money we give away in federal aid (not just Ukraine) can be used here for the benefit of the people who are taxed to generate that revenue.

alienanimals ,

They get your point. The problem is you’re using a false choice fallacy.

We don’t have to choose between funding Ukraine’s defense or improving infrastructure in the USA. We can do both. If you look a the US federal budget, you’ll find that the money we send to Ukraine pales in comparison to our other spending. There are lots of places we could re-allocate funds to increase infrastructure spending without letting our allies (Ukraine) be invaded and murdered by our cold war enemy (Russia). The real question is why you’d rather see these people die than look at the federal budget.

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

First off we do not have an alliance with Ukraine. We do not have any official defense treaty with them so they are not allies, just quasi-allies since we supply them with weapons. There is a difference because if they were allies then we’d be directly fighting Russia now. And yes we can do both, fund Ukraine and infrastructure, or we can focus on just one. How is that a false choice fallacy? A false choice fallacy is based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. I didn’t limit any options, I merely stated that I don’t like the option chosen and think another option is the better choice.

alienanimals ,

Sorry I misunderstood. I now see that you would prefer that the people of Ukraine get invaded and murdered by our cold war enemy and that we should just let it happen. You’d rather save that drop in the bucket rather than look at the entire federal budget and see how insignificant the Ukraine funding really is in the grande scheme of things. Got it.

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

Well now speaking of fallacies you reply with an Ad Hominem one. I never said anything about wanting the people of Ukraine murdered. My original post was criticizing why the US govt spends so much energy prioritizing Ukraine’s defense when we have Americans struggling here in the US.

JustZ ,
@JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

Nobody cares about local sectarian extremists killing each other over nothing. That’s not what’s happening in Ukraine, where the stakes actually matter to the international community.

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

Explain how the war in Ukraine is so important to the international community because the only ones I see care are the western countries. USA, EU, probably Australia and Canada.

JustZ , (edited )
@JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

That’s pretty much the only relevant international community. Those countries pretty much represent most of the world’s economic and military power.

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

Did you forget that China is the second largest economy in the world? The Middle East and OPEC has a stranglehold over the world energy. Asia is the world manufacturing hub. The west is not the only relevant international community.

JustZ , (edited )
@JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

Oh no, I was talking about the free world, not autocracies and slave labor states.

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

No matter what their governments are they are still a part of this world. And my original statement still stands.

JustZ ,
@JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

I know what you’re saying. I’m suggesting they aren’t world citizens; they aren’t needed to conduct most of the world’s business going forward and are, for the most part, adequately addressed by a policy of isolation and containment. They grow weaker with time, more dependent on one another, and spread increasingly thin. Talking about the “Group of Friends” countries.

Your point was that such countries aren’t supporting Ukraine so it’s technically not accurate when I say the international community is supporting Ukraine.

My point is, of course they don’t support Ukraine, they are sucking the tits of Daddy Russia, or Daddy Iran, Daddy China: such shitholes of oppression and corruption as Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, Belarus, Laos, Zimbawe, etc. They are hypocritically united by isolationism, codependency, shared disregard of human and labor rights and legal and international norms. And therefore it is accurate to say they aren’t part of the international community; how can they be part of something they want to burn down?

PhlubbaDubba ,

International Grain supply?

Africa in particular heavily depends on Ukrainian grain shipments, without which said countries will likely descend into scarcity induced violence, which will create yet another international migrant crisis for the western right to act like helping with is tantamount to surrendering to an invasion while swearing how totally not racist they are.

And if you think those countries would be fine if either Ukraine or Russia held those fields and ports, no they wouldn’t because Russia has demonstrated it is well willing to exploit market power for political gain, meaning that unless you sign on with whatever Putin wants, you can forget about feeding your people without paying through the nose for it.

This is literally a war to protect the sovereign rights of all smaller nations, first of all to not be invaded, and second of all to chart their paths without being extorted into an expedient lane by a market share superpower holding their ability to have food hostage for political favors.

clearleaf ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c7051c7a-893f-4599-9383-19c631c7aa45.jpeg

PhlubbaDubba ,

Not to mention getting to neener neener about being on the side of international law and order if only for once at least.

interceder270 ,

You see, they don’t matter.

What matters is funneling as much taxpayer money to the MIC as possible.

BombOmOm ,
@BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

What about us Americans struggling in our economy?

Most of the funding is literally for American jobs. Congress authorizes funds for the creation of, for example, Javelin missiles. This funding pays American workers in American factories producing said missiles. Then we send them to Ukraine to blow up Russian invaders.

Why the hell would you want to take away these well-paying American jobs if your concern truly is about Americans struggling in our economy?

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

You mean the military industrial complex? I used to work for them and I know how bs their numbers are. Also that industry relies on conflict so they won’t make money during peacetime. I’m not too keen on my tax money being spent overseas too find a war that we are not a part of. Well we shouldn’t have been involved until we involved ourselves.

krakenx ,

They would be struggling a whole lot less if Putin wasn’t actively ripping the USA apart from the inside.

avrachan ,

yes of course, the all powerful Russia.

nevemsenki ,

If you are an ally of US or NATO in general, the conflict in Ukraine is probably a rude awakening as to what you can expect if you get into a conflict.

ninjan ,

What? Had Ukraine been in NATO this would’ve been a full blown war with boots on the ground from the entirety of NATO, not just weapon deliveries. And Russia would’ve been completely unable to advance. NATO would have complete air superiority inside the first month, any visible Russian base within or near Ukraine would be decimated and their only course of action would be fortifying positions in cities among the civilian population. Trying to fight a regular war would just end up in a decisive defeat within months. It would be very similar to Desert Storm. Advancing to and clearing fortified cities would of course prove a challenge even with NATO fully involved, and I fully expect that Russia would go all in on guerilla tactics in that case.

nevemsenki ,

That’s absolutely great for NATO members, but not for allies which I outlined above. Being a reliable ally is paramount to maintain soft power… given how Ukraine is turning out, if I were say the Philippines, I’d be really concerned about the US support in a potential conflict with China.

ninjan ,

… Of course NATO only truly protects members. That is part of their charter. Anyone can Google that in 5 minutes. Support for Ukraine happens because EU and US are concerned about Russian aggression and expansion towards the West. Had they invaded say Mongolia or one of the Stans then I’d be very surprised if NATO / the EU provided anything but humanitarian support. The sanctions would probably happen still though.

nevemsenki ,

If you don’t know what soft power is, you could give yourself a favour and try googling it. No matter how you spin it, a lot of countries attempting to resist China (and Russia or Iran) will start wondering after this absolute struggle of a support.

legios ,
@legios@aussie.zone avatar

Thing is Ukraine doesn’t have a defense pact with the US. The US is doing this out of (insert any number of reasons ranging from stability in the region, strengthening ties, propping up military manufacturers etc).

The Philippines have had a defense pact with the US since 1951 and basically means if things can’t be resolved diplomatically the US will commit not just arms but fighting forces to the joint defense of the nation.

To quote Wikipedia - ‘In a 2022 meeting, US Vice-President Kamala Harris reportedly assured Philippine president Bongbong Marcos that “an armed attack on the Philippines armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the South China Sea would invoke US Mutual Defense commitments.”’

Zoboomafoo ,
@Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world avatar

That is how a defensive alliance works, yes

interceder270 ,

I guess Ukrainians can blame themselves for not being able to reach NATO’s standards in time.

Those profiting off of corruption literally sold out the entire country.

BombOmOm , (edited )
@BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

Ukraine wasn’t able to join NATO as Russia has been occupying Crimea and portions of Donbas since their first invasion in 2014.

Those profiting off of corruption literally sold out the entire country.

Ever since Maiden (also in 2014), Ukraine has been actively cleaning up their government. You see articles fairly often of the ongoing anti-corruption activities in Ukraine. As proof of this, the BBC ran and article this year of Ukraine removing military officials who were taking bribes.

PersnickityPenguin ,

If Ukraine had already been part of NATO, Russia would never have attacked as that would have immediately triggered article 5 and there would be B-2 bombers circling the Kremlin.

ninjan ,

Precisely

PhlubbaDubba ,

Oh it would have been worse than desert storm

A mutiny force almost took Moscow just a while ago. NATO would be making jokes about reuniting Ukraine with Raspberry Ukraine, Grey Ukraine, Yellow Ukraine, and Green Ukraine just to let China worry about a NATO state on its borders to make its problems with the First Island Chain even worse

JustZ , (edited )
@JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

Wtf are you talking about? Putin said Kyiv would fall in 48 hours or something like that. Instead his country is hemorrhaging money and fighting-aged men, Russia controls only slightly more territory than it did before the invasion.

And that’s with neither NATO nor the US in a hot war with Russia. If we were, circumstances would be very different and the only thing flying in Russian airspace would be snow.

interceder270 ,

Putin said Kyiv would fall in 48 hours or something like that.

Source? This seems like one of those lies told often enough it becomes true.

BombOmOm ,
@BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

Not 2 days, but Putin did claim 2 weeks: Putin Boasts of Being Able to Take Kiev in 2 Weeks

JustZ ,
@JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

I did search and found multiple sources saying two days. I don’t speak Russian so I have to take the journalists’ word for it. He says now if the west stopped backing Ukraine, it would be over in a week.

After which we all know he will move on to Poland and the rest of Europe.

PersnickityPenguin ,

Yes, because he has also literally said they would knock over Poland. And by they, Russian elites not necessarily putin. His essay was telling however.

PhlubbaDubba ,

You mean that even them just providing aid will be enough for you to stalemate a self proclaimed superpower and then push back against them and launch direct attacks against them?

I agree, this war is a big signpost for smaller nations who share borders with large neighbors known for considering themselves superpowers while also boo-hooing themselves as le-opressed global south for internet privs to stan for because Lebensraum and Irredentism are cool when something something colonialism.

When Ethiopia invades Eritrea or Eastern Somalia, these types will flock to defend them against any accusation of wrongdoing because “but self governance and sovereignty over your own ports is colonialism!”

xmunk ,

The GOP will, of course, stand with Putin. The GOP has always famously stood by the USSR/Russia. I believe it was Ronald Reagen who bravely said “Mr. Gorbachev, build me a fucking wall.”

PowerGloveSoBad ,

Lol, close but not quite what he said. Sorry if you were making a joke. The actual quote was “you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.”

Buddahriffic ,

No, the real quote was, “All in all you’re just another brick in the wall.”

PinkPanther ,

Bullshit. It was “Mexico will pay for the wall.”.

Snowpix ,
@Snowpix@lemmy.ca avatar

Hey! Putin! Leave them kids alone!

Buddahriffic ,

How can ye have any Putin if ye don’t eat yer meat!?

jaybone ,

We don’t need no re-education.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration on Monday sent Congress an urgent warning about the need to approve tens of billions of dollars in military and economic assistance to Ukraine, saying Kyiv’s war effort to defend itself from Russia’s invasion may grind to a halt without it.

In a letter to House and Senate leaders and also released publicly, Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young warned the U.S. will run out of funding to send weapons and assistance to Ukraine by the end of the year, saying that would “kneecap” Ukraine on the battlefield.

Biden has sought a nearly $106 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and other needs, but it has faced a difficult reception on Capitol Hill, where there is growing skepticism about the magnitude of assistance for Ukraine and where even Republicans supportive of the funding are insisting on U.S.-Mexico border policy changes to halt the flow of migrants as a condition for the assistance.

The Biden administration has said it has slowed the pace of some military assistance to Kyiv in recent weeks to try to stretch supplies until Congress approves more funding.

The letter followed a classified Capitol Hill briefing on Nov. 29 for the top House and Senate leaders on the need for the assistance.

Defense and other national security officials briefed the “big four” congressional leaders as Congress is debating President Joe Biden’s nearly $106 billion funding package, which includes $61 billion for Ukraine but has become snared by Republican demands for U.S.-Mexico border security changes.

The original article contains 463 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 45%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •