Congress unveiled on Tuesday a massive $1.7 trillion omnibus funding bill that includes $45 billion in new Ukraine aid, which will bring total US spending on the war to about $112 billion.
The $45 billion is over $7 billion more than the $37.7 billion in Ukraine aid that the White House asked Congress to authorize before the next congressional session begins in January.
According to a summary of the new Ukraine aid, the $45 billion includes $9 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which allows the US to purchase arms for Kyiv and funds other types of support, including training and intelligence sharing.
The aid includes $11.8 billion to replenish US military stockpiles that have been sent to Ukraine. US European Command will get $6.98 billion for “mission support, intelligence support, pay, equipment, and related activities.” The US is set to open a new command in Germany dedicated entirely to overseeing the training and arming of Ukrainian forces.
Other types of aid include $13.37 billion for economic assistance and direct budgetary support and $2.47 billion for humanitarian aid. When it comes to oversight, the new aid includes $6 million for the Pentagon’s Inspector General and requires an IG report on the new funds.
The 4,155-page $1.7 trillion omnibus bill includes the funds for the $858 billion National Defense Authorization Act, which has been passed through Congress and is expected to be signed by President Biden sometime this week. Congress needs to pass the omnibus bill by December 23 to avoid a government shutdown.
The NDAA will allow the US to arm Ukraine even more as it includes another $800 million in Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. The NDAA will also grant the Pentagon wartime purchasing powers by allowing non-competitive, multi-year contracts for certain arms. The authority could be used to refill US stockpiles, arm Ukraine, and assist foreign governments that have provided support for Ukraine.
124 thoughts on “Congress Includes $45 Billion in New Ukraine Aid to $1.7 Trillion Funding Bill”
I talk to people in the world, and everyone is oblivious. I despair for Humanity, for we are stupid as sh!t.
We really do deserve to be wiped out, Edward. Excepting those of us who frequent AW, of course 😉
Not so sure about ‘those of us who frequent AW’, because I have observed a lot here, LOL. 🙂
Well, yes, there are a certain few 😉
I adore you Gypsy! I do but dear-heart, do you really believe we should be wiped out?….
I think it would be excellent if we could read the future, then we could step back from ourselves and view the death and destruction, the earth over…
Humanity still has a chance……?………..?……………!
Donna I adore you too and your sense of optimism! I’m a bit more pessimistic about humankind’s future UNLESS we have what would amount to a worldwide revolt against our institutions, Amerikkka being the first, hopefully followed by the EU. If there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that we can somehow get some peace-lovers in charge of our regimes, there just might be hope for us.
Unfortunately I’m not holding my breath 😔
This number simply boggles one’s mind. I can’t even wrap my head around it: all those billions and billions employed to sow death and destruction, when there is so much GOOD it could do for the world.
I guess feeding starving people isn’t as glamorous to the Amerikkkan regime as war.
1 – they are thinking the planet is overpopulated.
2 – they hope, by investing in the war in Ukraine, they are making Russia weaker.
3 – they are moving the taxpayers money to their own pockets. No secret that Congress is representing the interests of MIC.
Check out the statistics on what age group of Americans have succumbed the most to C19. Of the thousands who have died this year. something like 92% are 65+. You know, the folks some call “useless feeders”. WSWS: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/13/pers-d13.html
Yup, V, I’m one of ‘em 😐
Don’t worry, if they keep this spending up pretty soon we will spend billions to feed people as well. As in, a loaf of bread or gallon of milk will cost 10 figures
And all unaudited.
Not billions, trillions now. So much suffering in grocery aisles up and down the country. My local Walmart having empty reduced bakery shelves, Costco selling out of eggs, $10 a dozen eggs at Safeway, homeless camping out in front the same stores begging for food in the cold and urinating into the landscaping at the grocery parking lot. Just some of what I witnessed in the past week in my sleepy city days before Christmas. And yet, BILLIONS more for war profiteers and any calls for peace denounced. Congress is beyond broken.
For the war profiteers it can’t get better. How many Ukrainians will have to die to justify that much money and how much longer? What is the price for Ukrainian annihilation? What is it Americans expect to gain other than the profits.
For the profiteers this is the land where milk and honey form a river.
The Ukrainians lost, there is nothing to win left. Membership and NATO? This war will be the end of NATO, the EU will be gone, there will be no way to fund a NATO.
Please tell me how this war will be the end of NATO. I would like read that story.
Hello. I am new here but have seen your posts. I am curious, and I hope you will indulge me with a question. What is the desirable end-game in this Ukraine/Russia conflict as far as you are concerned? I will not likely get into a back-and-forth over my query. I am simply curious, and I am sure that there are other folks here who are as well.
I’m not speaking for Kenneth, but I can tell you what is the desirable end-game in this from a mid to eastern EU nations point of view:
1) Clear demonstration that war of territorial conquest will never pay off (sanctioned to death)
2) Putin’s/Russia’s territorial desires curbed
3) Ukraine free of Russian occupation (incl. Crimea)
4) The Russians re-included in European trade
I’d argue in that order (prioritization) – number 3 and 4 are important to provide for an investment climate that can drive the rebuilding of Ukraine post war (working towards EU membership).
A goal of “sanctioned to death”? Doesn’t sound like it will end well—
In fact, it won’t even start well.
As for 4)
I would contend, that a Russia fully integrated into EU trade was always the true threat to NATO. That was where the whole friction started.
I am fine with demilitarizing Ukraine, (in fact all of Eastern Europe) provided that both sides do so.
Unfortunately, we have politicians with more glands than neurons and not statesmen.
I don’t get that “sanctioned to death” business.
As for 4)
Anglo-Saxons were always opposed to Russia and Germany being economically connected, going back to Bismarck. The end of the EU is planned in with the deindustrialization of Germany, it is also the end of the EU.
The elimination of EU an economic competitor will only leave China to deal with if all goes well for Biden. And he is working on the China problem already.
So far it has worked about as well as could be hoped for given the sanctions imposed – If you do not like the idea of sanctioning war of territorial conquest to death then that to me sounds very bad.
I said re-included in European trade – neither UK nor Russia will be fully integrated into EU trade – they would not likely want it nor would a lot of members approve of it – and to join EU a country needs the approval of all existing members and to be democratic – so though I think it might be a good idea I do not see it in the cards.
What do you mean both sides? If you mean Russia too then perhaps 🙂
Given Russia’s several military incursions into the territory of their neighbors saying that politicians who want to prevent this have more glands than neurons seems a bit glib.
“If you do not like the idea of sanctioning war of territorial conquest to death then that to me sounds very bad.”
But not sanctioning “to death” brutal illegal wars of aggression for regime change? I see what you are doing here. This leaves the US off the hook for making Iraq a disease-ridden cesspool.
No I would absolutely support such sanctions too.
No the US is still very much on the hook for that – as it did not involve territorial annexations it has however already proven a spectacularly bad idea seen both from a political perspective and most certainly from a national economic one too.
I challenge you, justify savage sanctions morally and justify it with the legal international law. It is your chance to convince anyone that sanctions are humane and good.
False challenge – I neither can nor will defend savage sanctions – so no end to sales of medicines and such, nor is sanctions in many/most cases justifiable. Here however we are talking about preventing contagion – i.e. preventing that a lot of other countries as-well as Russia will use war to make land grabs.
We have basically since about WWII frowned upon aggressive wars of territorial conquest – with very good reason – if we do not apply sanctions to countries that engage in such wars we will have a lot of places where such wars will become a much more appealing idea – that will unless you think the world is populated by idealists lead to more wars.
Thus there is I’d argue good reasons that morally justifies prudent not savage sanctions on any country that engages in that kind of wars – and yes that ought to include Israel, as in they certainly need to relinquish control over Palestine and the Golan Heights (though I acknowledge that some arguments may be made for that these areas were not taken as part of a war of aggression).
I want to make it quick, all sanctions are brutal, they are to do harm to the people in order to destabilize the society and make it ripe for regime change. Sanctions are by their very nature brutal most of all to low income and poor people. The USA is in the business to sanction poorer and weaker nations and forces others to implement the sanctions. They sanction business and individual, they confiscate other nations currency resources, they are a lawless rogue state, think about it.
Or for the leader(s) to change direction if they want to stay in power.
Still better than war.
Whataboutery for the purpose of the debate about Ukraine
I know, that does not change that it is the best alternative to going to war with Russia over Ukraine.
“Still better than war”.
That’s about the cruelest statement I’ve read all year.
How so – do you think nuclear war is better? How is this cruel?
The “lesser of two evils” is STILL EVIL. To insinuate that a long slow death by starvation is preferable to instant death via bombs is insane.
No it is to insinuate that Russia not being in a position where people will have to starve to death do have to face the choice – stop supporting Putin of live lives that are much poorer. I have repeatedly made it clear that I have never supported the US sanctions on Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – so let the starving to death meme go.
NO WAR is the best alternative, get it? Sanctions are economic warfare. In Iraq sanctions caused the death of hundreds of thousands of children. When Albright was asked if it was worth it, she said yes. The video is still available.
Can you imagine the misery of parents watching the suffering of their starving children dying a slow painful death? Have you ever seen a starving child, a mother unable to nurse her hungry new born? In what way is that better than bombs or bullets? TELL ME HOW IS IT BETTER THAN WAR, GOD DAMN IT, it is war, nothing but war, where do you see a difference? Open your mind. given the choice would you rather starve to death slowly or take a bullet? What about your child, would you prefer to watch your child die a long and slow painful death by starvation or a bullet?
Ukraine had the chance to be neutral and no war, why would they pick war instead of neutrality, peace and prosperity, they had voted for peace. Russia had legitimate security concerns which they wanted settled diplomatically, but the Americans did not even reply timely in a diplomatic manner. They started the war not Russia, just as now they provoke China. Wake up and smell the coffee.
I beg to differ a NATO war against Russia is more likely to kill far more people than sanctions will ever.
Yes all they need to do in Russia is to stop going to work for a week or two – you may not know this but Putin is actually pretty popular in Russia – they are not likely to starve to death in Russia.
We are here talking about Russia not the US actions against third world nations – which I have never supported.
It is Russia – nuclear weapons sort of changes the game, if we attack Russia then there is a real chance that we will get an all out nuclear war, if they did not have nukes there would be a much higher chance that we would have entered the war.
what about actually debating what is likely to happen in Russia instead of this whataboutery?
No just flat no – neutrality in December would not have avoided war, they had to rescind any claim to Crimea as-well – and that would be rewarding war of aggression so back to square one.
No Russia did not have legitimate security concerns they wanted a rump Ukraine to acknowledge their annexation of Crimea the west to end sanctions over Crimea and Ukraine to become a buffer state – that is not legitimate in any way – try to focus on what was the actual demands and things become much easier to understand.
The USA is the real aggressor, ask Angela Merkel she was there at the creation of the war, namely the fake MINSK agreements in order to buy time for Ukraine to get ready for war with Russia. That is the reality behind all the political double talk, remove the curtain and open you eyes, you are the sucker in this game. We, the people, are suckers for the war profiteers, people like Biden and Zelensky and Pelosi and all the other neocon scum in congress and government of both parties.
So the Minsk agreement was the US being the aggressor – in spite of the Minsk agreement being a deal struck to end Russian aggression – remember before the Minsk agreement the Russians had already invaded and then annexed Crimea – so they clearly started it by invading a country with no functioning government at the time (5 days after the legally elected government had been ousted).
Well what can I say, if you put events in the wrong sequence then you will arrive at the wrong conclusions.
Heck , Renate, Amerikkka is practically sanctioning its own people. Enormous rent increases; unaffordable groceries; and until VERY recently, over-the-top gasoline prices, though natural gas and electricity costs haven’t dropped.
As you say, mainly affecting low-income and the poor.
What’s up with ByeDone’s “inflation relief”? Like others here have indicated, every trip to the grocery store results in sticker-shock. I shop weekly, and that’s how frequently prices are raised.
My grocery bill almost doubled in just days, like an overnight $$$$ devaluation of more than 10%. groceries are basic not luxuries one can reduce/eliminate. What must it be like for young families with children or people with only SS income?
But they won’t happen. That’s my point. Selective punishment. But let’s make one offense sound worse than the other so we can convince everyone that sanctions on Russia are more justified.
The US wasn’t sanctioned or punished for the invasion of Iraq. So the only “hook” they are isn’t a result of any action taken against them by the international community for the invasion.
Even after this from Bush 2:
“The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invassion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.”
Bush shrugged and said, under his breath, “Iraq, too.”
But it is worse as in the one (US vs Iraq) was self punishing as in neither the US nor any of its partners were eager for a repeat – so the US not only lost a lot of money they also lost a very large amount of political goodwill and soft power – the other is a path to a lot more wars as more wars will be sound politics in the interest of the nation – so yes one is bad in and by itself the other is bad on by an order of magnitude.
As pointed out they lost in so many ways that international sanctions were hardly needed – that is not to say that we should not have tried, but just that it was not worth the political capital to do so.
It was a remarkable moment!
C’mon man, get real. Whatever “self-punishment” the US might have inflicted on itself, it doesn’t come close the condemnation Russia has received for their invasion of Ukraine or the attempt to destroy them economically. It was even a stated goal by the US. I can’t believe you would even make such a case. The US was NEVER even admonished by the international community. And never mind what we’ve done since the invasion. Not eager for a repeat? We never stopped f*cking with them. Trump even had the gall to threaten Iraq with sanctions worse than he put on Iran if the Iraqi’s demanded that we leave. Poor US, they have suffered enough, right?
No indeed it should not, because the US invasion of Iraq was not a war of territorial conquest – hence the fact that it did not work out (to put in mildly) had the immediate effect that it was a very costly war in the sense of political capital as-well as money – therefore there would very little reason to expect any others to want to copy the action including future US presidents (if in doubt look at the hands off approach to Libya).
I make the case for the US led actions being fundamentally different from the Russian action in Ukraine – because they are – no other nation would have incentives to try to do what the US does – I’d argue that the US does not have these incentives, but apparently one administration after an other thinks they can do better – still in the end the threat of contagion simply is not there.
I’m not defending the US so why are you bringing this up?
You keep sidestepping what the international community’s reaction to both invasions was and you keep pretending that somehow, we’ve learned our lesson. Horsesh*t. And again, with the war of territorial conquest being more evil than your run of the mill regime change war that made Iraq a large cesspool and killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions. And did I mention diseases? And money? Seriously? The MIC made out like a bandit. Sound familiar?
The stated goal I was talking about was the US(Austn/Biden/Blinken)talk of “weakening” Russia.
“no other nation would have the incentive to do what the US does”. That means the US SHOULDN”T have been punished? So, sanctions are for only stopping the incentive for other countries not to do the same thing? That is mind numbing and I can’t believe you actually think that.
My last paragraph was telling you that we haven’t stopped f*king with them. Meaning the sanctions that never came, should have and that self-imposed “punishment” didn’t do a damn bit of good.
War of territorial conquest is an order of magnitude worse than invasions in general as war of territorial conquest makes war a much more attractive option – hence we will get far more wars if that is the new norm.
I do not side step the lack of condemnation the US has faced, but acknowledge it outright in several comments – that the US has been able to get away without facing sanctions as most/many states judge that they have been taught the kind of lesson they need to be taught and that they can afford to teach them – mostly by declining to support the US in other actions, does not mean that we have to do nothing while Russia is inflicting a much worse end outcome upon the world (and no what the Russians are doing in Ukraine is not necessary worse than what the US did in Iraq but the consequences of not sanctioning the Russians are).
OK thanks – a goal I happen to agree with – if a nation keeps invading its neighbors with the purpose of annexing parts of their lands then it really needs to be weakened.
No it means that the consequences of not punishing the US will not create contagion – importantly here is that the actions of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan have also been massive failures domestically.
No but it is almost always more important than the ‘official’ goal(s), this because the official goal(s) are often very long time in coming to fruition (if at all) and thus it is more to teach other would be copycats from engaging in that kind of action.
Well lets just say I beg to differ, after the Vietnam war there was a fairly long period where the US was much less war like – after the second Gulf war there was a similar period where the US took a less war like role while trying to get out of Afghanistan – so it was the UK and France who were the main instigators/progenitors of the action in Libya.
“War of territorial conquest is an order of magnitude worse than invasions in general as war of territorial conquest makes war a much more attractive option – hence we will get far more wars if that is the new norm.”
If you create the criteria, then yes. The US did a “shock and awe” in Iraq that was far more brutal than what Russia has done in Ukraine. We destroyed their infrastructure. A civil war ensued, right under our nose, and the feared ISIS was born right there. But since no one will repeat this, the US shouldn’t be punished as harshly as Russia? Again, Horsesh*t.
“I do not side step the lack of condemnation the US has faced, but acknowledge it outright in several comments – that the US has been able to get away without facing sanctions as most/many states judge that they have been taught the kind of lesson they need to be taught and that they can afford to teach them – mostly by declining to support the US in other actions, does not mean that we have to do nothing while Russia is inflicting a much worse end outcome upon the world (and no what the Russians are doing in Ukraine is not necessary worse than what the US did in Iraq but the consequences of not sanctioning the Russians are).”
Wow, other states will now say no to the US. That will teach us. And it’s not a matter of “not sanctioning” Russia. It’s you twisting yourself into a pretzel on why the US wasn’t sanctioned and how they have been punished.
“OK thanks – a goal I happen to agree with – if a nation keeps invading its neighbors with the purpose of annexing parts of their lands then it really needs to be weakened.”
Then so do the US/NATO for putting out the bait for 30+ years.
“No it means that the consequences of not punishing the US will not create contagion – importantly here is that the actions of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan have also been massive failures domestically.”
That shouldn’t be the criteria for punishment if you commit a crime. The US invasion of Iraq was a crime, and they should have been punished for that crime and they weren’t. And stop with any self-inflicted domestic wounds that the US might have suffered. Russia is getting those PLUS real punishment from the international community.
“No but it is almost always more important than the ‘official’ goal(s), this because the official goal(s) are often very long time in coming to fruition (if at all) and thus it is more to teach other would be copycats from engaging in that kind of action.”
Sanctions don’t work long term because the leaders of the country aren’t affected. No different in the short term.
“Well lets just say I beg to differ, after the Vietnam war there was a fairly long period where the US was much less war like – after the second Gulf war there was a similar period where the US took a less war like role while trying to get out of Afghanistan – so it was the UK and France who were the main instigators/progenitors of the action in Libya.”
Your definition of “less war like” is actually humorous. And who was Hillery talking about when she said:
We came, we saw, he died”. *cackle* *cackle*
It is as pointed out not that what Russia does in its invasion is worse than what the US has done, but what Russia is doing by its invasion (annexing territory) that is worse as it makes war a more politically attractive option – how is that so hard to fathom? And yes that is why we punish economic crimes harder than e.g. crimes of violence – you may call it horsesh*t because you don’t think it is fair but all societies do this.
More importantly – is it that you suggest that because the US can afford to lose loads of money and waste human life on failed adventures then Russia should be allowed to gain money by annexing territory and depriving people of their rights and identity -or force them to flee?
Wow, other states will now say no to the US. That will teach us. And it’s not a matter of “not sanctioning” Russia. It’s you twisting yourself into a pretzel on why the US wasn’t sanctioned and how they have been punished.No it is simply describing the economics of the crime – the US carried out what amounts to an assault, Russia is doing a bank heist. Given the incentives to repeat and how badly it would hurt our societies to try to punish the US, the one needs to be sanctioned (Russia) while the other can be tolerated if we as pointed out curb their enthusiasm by being less supportive over the next period.
The US/NATO has not invaded a single land with the purpose of annexing territory – not one!
You may disagree with criminal law, but it is unlikely to change it – there is a reason why we punish economic crimes harsher than other types of crime – that you cannot see it will not change the lesson we have learned over the centuries.
Fine then you have no problem with us sanctioning Russia for 10 years – but I think you do, because the cream the Russian oligarchs can skim off the top will be much thinner during that time, and they will not be able to enjoy spending their money in the west.
I actually do not know, but if it was the leader of Libya, then the US was very much less war like in their approach to Libya than e.g. Iraq – several bombed out Iraqi towns bear this out!
“It is as pointed out not that what Russia does in its invasion is worse than what the US has done, but what Russia is doing by its invasion (annexing territory) that is worse as it makes war a more politically attractive option – how is that so hard to fathom? And yes that is why we punish economic crimes harder than e.g. crimes of violence – you may call it horsesh*t because you don’t think it is fair but all societies do this.”
And once again you are using YOUR own criteria to decide which is worse. If the US flattens a country and leaves, which we didn’t in Iraq by the way, then somehow this should go unpunished. But wait, the US was punished because those wars cost trillions of taxpayer’s monies which was passed on to the MIC. So, you even make your own criteria when it comes to what passes as punishment. NOTHING from the international community, but never mind. And do you really think the international community, led by the US, wouldn’t have been punishing Russia to the same degree if this were the standard “shock and awe” regime change invasion like the US did in Iraq? And that’s after the bogus WMD claim fell through and turned into the equally bogus “operation: Iraqi freedom”?
“More importantly – is it that you suggest that because the US can afford to lose loads of money and waste human life on failed adventures then Russia should be allowed to gain money by annexing territory and depriving people of their rights and identity -or force them to flee?”
I didn’t suggest any such thing. My whole argument has been that the US should have been punished by the international community for their brutal illegal invasion of Iraq and they weren’t.
“You may disagree with criminal law, but it is unlikely to change it – there is a reason why we punish economic crimes harsher than other types of crime – that you cannot see it will not change the lesson we have learned over the centuries.”
My god, there you go again. In order for there to be harsher punishment there has to be punishment on all the subjects being compared. There was no punishment levied on the US by the international community for the brutal illegal invasion of Iraq. Again, self-inflicted wounds don’t count.
“Fine then you have no problem with us sanctioning Russia for 10 years – but I think you do, because the cream the Russian oligarchs can skim off the top will be much thinner during that time, and they will not be able to enjoy spending their money in the west.”
I’m against sanctions because they don’t work. Period. The only lives destroyed are those of ordinary people. But maybe we can cause those poor oligarchs to skip caviar on occasion. We’ve been sanctioning North Korea forever and Kim still lives like a king. Sanctions don’t work.
“I actually do not know, but if it was the leader of Libya, then the US was very much less war like in their approach to Libya than e.g. Iraq – several bombed out Iraqi towns bear this out!”
What I meant was who was Hillary referring to when she said We. You have claimed that the US didn’t participate. So why did Hillary use the collective “we”? And our wars have morphed into allowing our proxies to carry them out along with our devastating sanctions that are creating misery in several countries as we speak. Our belligerence hasn’t subsided one iota.
Not my criteria the criteria’s that are used in criminal law i.e. that we punish crimes of enrichment (economic crimes) harder than crimes of violence. If you do as it would seem not like it take it up with the nations that make the decision – I only tried to explain why it is how it is – and I perhaps here should add that I would very much have liked the US to be punished over the Gulf war (especially the second one) but as it would have amounted to me knocking myself out – I understand why it had to be like it had to be.
Oh no we would very much have punished the Russians – I hope you never thought I was implying that the rules are the same for everyone.
So now that you understand why they were not and are not likely to be, do you approve of and understand why we must apply sanctions to the Russians although we also should have applied some on the US?
It will be much worse – the poor in Russia are not going to suffer nearly the same percentage loss of income as the oligarchs and they will not have to starve – if it gets to that then they will oust Putin or lose the war. The Russians already cannot equip or supply their troops on the front.
Could it be that she simply misspoke as she sympathizes with the Ukrainians – she also talked about dodging bullets in Bosnia – though she never did – so I would not attach so much importance to what she says it is not indicative of anything beyond her thought process.
“Not my criteria the criteria’s that are used in criminal law i.e. that we punish crimes of enrichment (economic crimes) harder than crimes of violence.”
Not criminal law and both crimes of violence.
“I would very much have liked the US to be punished over the Gulf war (especially the second one) but as it would have amounted to me knocking myself out – I understand why it had to be like it had to be.”
I understand it too. That’s why it’s wrong.
“Oh no we would very much have punished the Russians – I hope you never thought I was implying that the rules are the same for everyone.”
Right there. And that’s why the US wasn’t punished.
“It will be much worse – the poor in Russia are not going to suffer nearly the same percentage loss of income as the oligarchs and they will not have to starve – if it gets to that then they will oust Putin or lose the war.”
As long as you use percentage as a measuring stick, sure. But the poor being more miserable and the oligarchs being less rich is a more realistic way of describing what sanctions will do. And when you start out poor, you really don’t have far to go until you reach bottom. But I suppose we could hope the people get pissed off enough that they’ll rise up against Putin. That’ll work, right? I always laugh when people think rising up against an authoritarian government is a proper goal of sanctions.
It was a parallel, but just forget it you do not understand that war of territorial conquest is fundamentally different from temporary invasions – so you will probably always be angered by the way the two are treated differently in the international community – just like the US and Russia are treated differently.
Yes – but it is the consequences of our economies being so closely intertwined – and us choosing to exploit the advantages of scale really only present in the US in 1949 when NATO was created.
No the US was not punished because we are very dependent on the US and punishing the US is more likely to end with us breaking than them doing so, but if I have understood you correctly, you think this will also be the outcome of sanctioning Russia.
Putin enjoys an 80% approval rating – the first thing that will go is the foreign defense contracts (they are already going) the next is the vital imports of tech necessary for advanced defense items – there is little chance that all of Putin’s would be replacements will sit still while the Russian capability to project power across its birders are being wasted away.
“It was a parallel, but just forget it you do not understand that war of territorial conquest is fundamentally different from temporary invasions – so you will probably always be angered by the way the two are treated differently in the international community – just like the US and Russia are treated differently.”
I didn’t necessarily disagree with you about the fundamental difference or there being a different level of punishment. But the US got no punishment. And given the fact that the “temporary invasion” never really ended, it’s hard to determine how much less of a punishment there should be. Like I said earlier about Trump threatening sanctions worse than he doled out to Iran if Iraq insisted we withdraw all our troops. So temporary is poor description of our invasion
“No the US was not punished because we are very dependent on the US and punishing the US is more likely to end with us breaking than them doing so, but if I have understood you correctly, you think this will also be the outcome of sanctioning Russia.”
I wouldn’t want the US sanctioned either. Sanctions don’t work. The whole conversation was about whether the US should be punished. At least I thought it was.
If we constrain the debate to Afghanistan I’m prepared to say that you are not altogether wrong (the same for Vietnam but that is beyond its last sell by date) – there is however a difference in that the US was very willing to leave Afghanistan, they just could not find a way to do so – and they most certainly was not building on any attempt to make the occupation permanent.
That however is as I pointed out not why the US was not sanctioned but because of the intertwining of our economies.
I and a very large part of the population do think that they work – in at least two important ways:
1) they deter would be copycats from the actions they would otherwise take – if territorial conquest is not sanctioned there will be a lot of places where war suddenly are a good idea for nations with weaker neighbors in possession of valuable resources.
2) they weaken the sanctioned nation (Russia) and thus limits their further ambitions
Finally I’d argue that in the case of Russia the establishment will at some not too distant point see that the weakening of Russia is incompatible with their future aspirations and if Putin will not end this before it permanently weakens Russia then they will have to replace him.
“That however is as I pointed out not why the US was not sanctioned but because of the intertwining of our economies.”
Which I understand. I thought you were saying their punishment was sufficient because of lost treasure.
“I and a very large part of the population do think that they work – in at least two important ways:
1) they deter would be copycats from the actions they would otherwise take – if territorial conquest is not sanctioned there will be a lot of places where war suddenly are a good idea for nations with weaker neighbors in possession of valuable resources.
2) they weaken the sanctioned nation (Russia) and thus limits their further ambitions”
Russia knew sanctions would be forthcoming. This is why I believe Russia believed it was either invade or nothing will change. So maybe the copycats that don’t really believe their existence is in the balance might back away for fear of reprisals but not anyone who truly believes their existence is indeed in jeopardy. Not saying i believe Russia’s was, but that doesn’t matter. They do. And again, millions will suffer before Russia’s military feels the sanctions intended purposes.
“Finally I’d argue that in the case of Russia the establishment will at some not too distant point see that the weakening of Russia is incompatible with their future aspirations and if Putin will not end this before it permanently weakens Russia then they will have to replace him.”
And as others have pointed out, Putin might look like a dove in comparison.
Only sufficient to make anyone else contemplating such actions think again – apparently not so the US.
Flat no, had it known then it would not have had about half its foreign currency capital in western institutions.
Which is correct independent of the leading false statement (well I accept that they knew some sanctions would be coming).
I do not accept that the Russians thought their existence was threatened* – or is it your point that the sanction over Crimea were hurting them that badly? (* Ukraine was not about to enter NATO and NATO certainly was not about to attack Russia)
Nothing suggests that the Russians felt that their existence was at threat – their military was however already feeling the impact of the sanctions over Crimea – and they are now feeling the impact of the other sanctions that is why we see so many so old weapons dreged from storage.
He will, but a replacement which is worse than Putin will last very shortly as he will be unable to change the problems that face Russia in this conflict – the reason that Putin is not winning, is not that he has failed to engage hard enough – or are we to suppose he is utterly incompetent – I certainly would not subscribe to that notion.
“Flat no, had it known then it would not have had about half its foreign currency capital in western institutions.”
Exactly what then did you think Russia would think the reaction from the West would be? No sanctions? I highly doubt that given the West’s belligerence was what Russia was basing their invasion on.
“Nothing suggests that the Russians felt that their existence was at threat – their military was however already feeling the impact of the sanctions over Crimea – and they are now feeling the impact of the other sanctions that is why we see so many so old weapons dreged from storage.”
Other than them reiterating their security concerns over and over. You and I may think it to be bogus, but I believe Russia was genuine in their security concerns especially give their history.
“He will, but a replacement which is worse than Putin will last very shortly as he will be unable to change the problems that face Russia in this conflict – the reason that Putin is not winning, is not that he has failed to engage hard enough – or are we to suppose he is utterly incompetent – I certainly would not subscribe to that notion.”
That would make sense if Russia was indeed losing the war. I don’t see how anybody can make that claim when Ukraine has lost 20% of their territory.
I thought I made it clear – they expected a few more sanctions like the ones over Crimea and very likely expected to be able to get them to end in a reasonable amount of time as the Ukraine would be part of Russian or the rump Ukraine would end its claim to the areas the Russians occupied. They manifestly did not expect their foreign capital reserves to be ‘impounded’ and certainly did not plan for the conflict to last for long enough for western deliveries to make a difference.
No I do not believe that Russia having existed for 30 years with an independent Ukraine, suddenly thought that Ukraine were a mortal threat to the Russian state – and the Russian’s certainly did not think this either – some in the circle around Putin may have thought this, but I do not believe even this.
Some in the top may have thought if Ukraine at some point in the future became a member of NATO then it could be a threat (not likely an existential one, but a threat) that however does not explain the urgency of needing to invade in 2022 – so that is why it was a flat no – there simply is no reason for anyone to think that Ukraine is or was an existential threat to Russia.
Many are making that claim, I’m only making the claim that they are not winning it and that the sanctions are clearly making things a lot worse for nearly everyone in Russia – and I claim is enough for Putin to be understandably worried.
“I thought I made it clear – they expected a few more sanctions like the ones over Crimea and very likely expected to be able to get them to end in a reasonable amount of time as the Ukraine would be part of Russian or the rump Ukraine would end its claim to the areas the Russians occupied. They manifestly did not expect their foreign capital reserves to be ‘impounded’ and certainly did not plan for the conflict to last for long enough for western deliveries to make a difference.”
You did make yourself clear. You said, “flat no”. Now you are hedging on that.
“No I do not believe that Russia having existed for 30 years with an independent Ukraine, suddenly thought that Ukraine were a mortal threat to the Russian state”
Now you’re just ignoring what happened since 2014. I’m sure Russia was content before that, and this wouldn’t be happening otherwise.
“Many are making that claim, I’m only making the claim that they are not winning it and that the sanctions are clearly making things a lot worse for nearly everyone in Russia – and I claim is enough for Putin to be understandably worried.”
The claim is easy to make. One side lost 20% of their land. We’re talking about who is winning the war. By no metric is Russia losing. And I would guess life in Ukraine is “a lot worse” than for those in Russia feeling the squeeze of sanctions.
“Now you’re just ignoring what happened since 2014. I’m sure Russia was content before that, and this wouldn’t be happening otherwise.”
Prominent Russian political figures seem to disagree with you that Russia was “content” prior to 2014. The period of 2010-2014 represented a thaw in Russo-Ukrainian relations, not the norm in those relations subsequent to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Prior to that, there were all kinds of arguments and threats — over Crimea, over Ukrainian support for Georgia, over gas payments and prices, etc. It was only after the election of Yanukovych that Putin allowed as to that being “a good sign, at least external, that the quality of our relations has radically changed. … The situation is being aligned.”
Many supporters of the war like to (correctly) claim that “the west” and Russia have been in a de facto state of war for a long time (personally, I consider 1917 the start date, with a brief break for WW2). Ukraine has been a chess piece in that war since its independence, with both sides doing their damnedest to control it.
OK sure as I wrote it you might have thought that I meant that there would be no sanctions at all – my bad for putting it is those words.
No I’m not ignoring what happened in 2014 – or afterwards – as that all happened in Ukraine and none of it could ever be seen as an existential threat to Russia – or is it that you think that Ukraine deprived of Crimea would suddenly be able to attack and take Moscow – or just how do you explain that any development in Ukraine between 2014 and 2022 could somehow put the existence of Russia at risk – owing to the border issues with Russia they could after all not join NATO so just what is it that you think the Russians thought could threaten the extstance of Russia?
I should have been more precise I’m not claiming that Russia is losing the war – just that it is not winning – 9 months in having lost or had to vacate large portions of what they had occupied – is fairly good evidence that they are not winning (but very meager evidence that they are losing).
Your statement that they are winning reads as the statement that Germany was winning WWI put out in early 1918 you could be right, but the evidence is inconclusive. But you are right that life in Ukraine is orders of magnitude worse than life in Russia – on that at least we agree.
“OK sure as I wrote it you might have thought that I meant that there would be no sanctions at all – my bad for putting it is those words.”
I comment on what you say not what you might have meant. Flat no means flat no.
“No I’m not ignoring what happened in 2014 – or afterwards – as that all happened in Ukraine and none of it could ever be seen as an existential threat to Russia – or is it that you think that Ukraine deprived of Crimea would suddenly be able to attack and take Moscow – or just how do you explain that any development in Ukraine between 2014 and 2022 could somehow put the existence of Russia at risk – owing to the border issues with Russia they could after all not join NATO so just what is it that you think the Russians thought could threaten the extstance of Russia?”
You’re ignoring the elephant in the room. The USA.
“I should have been more precise I’m not claiming that Russia is losing the war – just that it is not winning – 9 months in having lost or had to vacate large portions of what they had occupied – is fairly good evidence that they are not winning (but very meager evidence that they are losing).”
The war started on Feb. 24th. Ukraine has less territory than when it started. I’ll just leave it at that.
“Your statement that they are winning reads as the statement that Germany was winning WWI put out in early 1918 you could be right, but the evidence is inconclusive. But you are right that life in Ukraine is orders of magnitude worse than life in Russia – on that at least we agree.”
No, I’m looking at territory gained, and territory lost. And I’m talking of the present not the future.
As you should – and as stated my bad – the wider point stands though the Russians/Putin did not in any way expect the depth of sanctions that came to pass.
how does the USA change what was going on in Ukraine and how could invading Ukraine change this situation to mean that the US did not constitute this kind of threat to Russia – NB that the US has nit stationed nukes in any of the new NATO states that joined post 1991.
Yes the point being that the Russians are no longer taking as much territory as they vacate – so this is not the powerful statement that you seem to believe it is.
if you did so you would have noticed that the Russians have vacated far more territory since June than they have taken – so the notion that they are winning (while still possible) cannot be argued just from territory gained, and territory lost – as that would lead you to the (possibly false) conclusion that the Russians are losing and have been so since late August.
“As you should – and as stated my bad – the wider point stands though the Russians/Putin did not in any way expect the depth of sanctions that came to pass.”
And that is your opinion. I’d say they considered All scenarios and that HAD to be one of them. They can’t be that dense.
“how does the USA change what was going on in Ukraine and how could invading Ukraine change this situation to mean that the US did not constitute this kind of threat to Russia – NB that the US has nit stationed nukes in any of the new NATO states that joined post 1991.”
More of a culmination to what transpired since the end of the cold war. Poking and poking until they got a response. I guess it was just Russia’s imagination where the real threat was coming from.
“Yes the point being that the Russians are no longer taking as much territory as they vacate – so this is not the powerful statement that you seem to believe it is.”
Regardless. At this point, if there was a scoreboard for such things, it would have Russia winning. You can twist it however you want to and section it off to make your argument, but you can’t change the fact that Ukraine is still at a net loss when it comes to territory. That along with their country is in the process of being destroyed while Russia’s is pretty much intact, makes it obvious as to who might be winning. And I don’t say that because I’m “rooting” for Russia or I’m a “Putin lover”, it’s just fact.
If they did can you explain why there were so dense as to leave about half their foreign reserves in financial institutions where they could be ‘impounded’ – because that sounds incredibly/absurdly stupid to me, unless you have some really good reason that this would be the best option available – and I do not think the Russians/Putin is that dense.
So you did not have an explanation as to why it had to be in February 2022 – nor any way invading Ukraine would change the security situation (at least not for the better) – so just thinking Putin highly prone to very bold action if provoked!?
No it has Russia on the retreat i.e. currently losing if we had stopped in March it or May you could argue it was winning, but not now.
I’m not denying that, I am saying that Russia is currently losing/vacating more territory than it is taking (since August) so clearly not winning currently.
A fact that is much more relevant and correct – if we disregard the fact that Ukraine is having its weapons systems repaired in the west and new ones produced in the west so effectively the only thing that Russia has is a much larger population to recruit from (but then that is not a small issue either.).
Get real, justify 60 years of sanctions against Cuba, sanctions against Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, Afghanistan and many more. Please justify the moral basis of sanctions against civilian populations starving children to death and denying medical care, the sanctions are savage economical warfare against women and children, aiming to destabilize nations for regime changes to suit us. Justify sanctions on real political and MORAL grounds, based on your superior western values.
I want to hear from you justifying sanctions morally, starving children to death causing irreversible brain damage, genocide like in Yemen, tell me!!!
I forgot, Russians, Putin never did that, only the Western value nations do that.
You have to read the original comment to understand that I did not defend the kind of sanctions you mention here. The original statement was:
So this simply does not apply – and I would not support sanctions on sales of medicines.
Do not jump into the middle of a stream and take the arguments out of context – I never stated that sanctions in general were justified nor that they should include refusal to sell e.g. medicine – so read the thread from the top.
Name sanctions against nations because of territorial conquest, like Israel which annexed the Syrian Golan Heights but is not sanctioned. Russia, the Crimea is not in that category because there was a referendum and the majority of population is Russian and historically it is part of Russia. Frankly, I know of no case of sanctions based on territorial conquest, can you name any? Wars are always about material interests, land and natural resources, markets border disputes and so on and never for ideals like freedom or democracy, that is propaganda, window dressing, simply said BS. Why is Iran being sanctioned what wrong did they do? Now the USA declares a nation to be a terrorist state to justify sanctions to gain their American goals, what about Iraq and if you take a close look it is always against poor nations with natural resources. Afghanistan is being sanctioned because the US lost the war against the Taliban and the country has rich natural mineral deposits like lithium worth nearly $1 trillion. The USA is a state terrorist nation, killing, assassinating government officials and scientist and other leaders using drones and hellfire missiles killing whole big wedding parties in seconds. Yes, the USA is guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, they have horrible incarceration conditions at home, mostly affecting black people, the USA has a very brutal and violent society. But they act as if they are better than others and do no wrong. Food and medicine are regularly included in sanctions, the topic is about sanctions in general. Details arise naturally during the debate. We did not mention hunger and pregnant and nursing women and babies and hunger and malnutrition, and so much more.
Government officials must know about consequences, if they don’t it because they do not want to know.
You left out the important part as part of war of aggression – the Golan heights were occupied after Israel had repeatedly been attacked by Syria – so for defensive purposes hey occupied them. That is not to say that it is OK, but it does go a long way to explain why sanctions were not a big issue.
Not how that kind of issue is supposed to be resolved – invasion first referendum second – just does not fly!
The Russian annexation of Crimea.
What am I supposed to defend US foreign policy now? Are you familiar with the term Whataboutery?
More whataboutery – I am not in the business of defending US actions, but I should remark that the US treating Iran or Afghanistan bad is not a justification for Russia to annex territory in Ukraine.
Sure but not on Russia at least not yet.
They had occupied the Golan heights for years because annexation is against international law, there were no incidences, but they had Trump, who said it is ok because he said so. It is still illegal and the same was moving the embassy to Jerusalem, but you conveniently ignore it because the Palestinians have no rights, they can be abused any time. And don’t dare say anything critical about the Israelis, that is anti-Semitism.
Sure they understand how best to avoid pushing an action against themselves – I do not ignore the Palestinians’ situation either – I do not even for one moment defend what the Israelis do – but nor do I ever accuse anyone who dare say anything critical about the Israelis, of anti-Semitism.
Like most of what the US does I thoroughly against it – that does however not mean that I need be for the Russians doing an Israeli thing on a much larger scale.
Fair question. To do enough damage to Russia troops and economy so that the people of Russia will not support another war.
Thak you for replying and indulging my curiousity.
NATO was sold to the people as defensive only, the USA has been twisting arms to have NATO join in wars of aggression. The USA is using the power of an occupier to force Europeans to act against their own self interests. The British were the EU proxies for American interests. The US is treating the NATO members like vassals, the sabotage on the pipelines was really a declaration of war to European NATO members. Biden is doing all he can to get NATO involved to fight Russia, sanctions, like a whip are used against EU nations and NATO partners, they are meant to do harm to the economies and the population, it is what sanctions are for, to harm the civilian population. Europeans will get out from under the American whip, they had enough. They can only hope that Russians win and end the lawless US hegemony. NATO already is cracking , after the Ukraine NATO and EU will go too. BY orders from the US they impose sanctions on each other, as insane as it is.
NATO has been if memory serves me correct two (possibly three) aggressive wars –
1) Kosovo (asked for by the European NATO embers),
2) Libya (asked for by UK, France and (Italy?),
3) Afghanistan (and article 5 action so aggressive? I’d argue yes)
So tell me where has NATO joined aggressive wars by arm twisting of the US?
I’d agree that UK has been acting as US proxies, but it has every time been a process of evaluating what Europe got in return for supporting the US or what it risked by not supporting the US.
So many European nations supported the US in Iraq – evaluating that the support they got in return (protection against Putin) to be more valuable than the cost in money and lives of a to them utterly pointless war in Iraq – (often a sort of compensation for not having lived up to their NATO obligations for 40 years).
If the US did that then you would be right, which is exactly why it is fairly unlikely that the US would have risked to do it to make an already closed pipeline stay closed, especially as Germany were already putting money in making the pipeline superfluous – money that would be wasted if it was reopened.
The civilian population in EU is overwhelming behind the sanctions and the German government (Scholz) the least eager to support is being pressured to support by coalition partners and the public. So not even a hint of a desire to differ with the US on this.
Can you name me one EU country outside Hungary where there is anything like majority (or even large minority) support for hoping the Russians will prevail?
The Europeans are demonstrating against NATO, they are fed up. They know, the USA is their enemy. With a controlled MSM people are being manipulated. The governments are kleptocratic throwing their nations under the bus, like Zelensky does to Ukraine. The USA has always been the occupier, and the governments went along as long as their economies could function that is not so anymore, Europeans are forced to depend on expensive US energy, destroying their economies to benefit US corporations. Get real, the US deliberately destroys competition. The US is a pariah nation, they are vultures. Not the average American people, they are struggling to hang in there too, the vultures are the elite, people like our politicians like Biden, Blinken, Pelosi, and the Republicans like McConnell, Trump, and his cohort, they are all psychopaths without character or conscience. They are human trash.
Where – there has been one not insignificant demonstration in Paris and Prague – and that is pretty much it and note that the demonstrations do not represent anything like a majority of the electorates:
Yes the neo-Nazi communist and other fringe movements ‘know’ as the survey suggests the significant majority of the populations do not support this ‘knowledge’.
I simply see very little evidence to support the notion that this is the attitude of any mainstream political sections of any of the EU (or UK) electorates.
In many EU countries we have proportional representation and anyone is free to create their own party – and many do – yet our politicians while fairly clearly better at representing the desires of their electorates do not differ on Ukraine or NATO – and the ones that did got very few votes where elections were held in 2022.
In case you don’t know it, Main Stream Media has lost ALL credibility, it has been reduced to propaganda rags, that includes, like always, the WP and the NYT.
Then you’d just have to take my word for it – there is no even significant minority support for leaving NATO or accepting Russia’s demands in Ukraine. If you have no evidence to support your claim that it is otherwise and reject all links to the numerous sites that will tell you what I’ve related then why even debate – you already know the ‘truth’ and nothing will even make you consider any alternative.
Why would I take your word for it, I still communicate with Europeans. You have no qualification and no evidence to support your allegations.
The demonstrations are rooted in small towns, there is no CIA money to fund big city demonstrations against NATO which would require time and money to organize. Transportation and publications cost money and require professional organizers. That is why there are more small demonstrations for now.
Well I have plenty of evidence only you just claimed that none of it counted for anything (only your assertions did?) – now you claim to communicate with Europeans – guess what so do I – I live in Europe – there are Ukrainian flags all over Europa – when we have had elections (and we have had a few) the parties elected were pro NATO and pro support for Ukraine (parties that were not got fewer votes than before 2022)
In Denmark where we have been very sceptical about the EU defense collaboration, even the few parties that used to be against NATO, had to come out and support NATO and the defense collaboration in EU to avoid the kind of voter losses their polls were predicting they would face otherwise.
No doubt you have links to stories about these protests – because all I can dig up are the ones organized by the far right or the far left – and none of the protests amount to anything when counted at the ballot boxes.
If the protests were an actual problem then the politicians would not get reelected on a platform of doing the opposite of what you suggest the people want – I can name only a very few countries in EU where there is any signs that there is a significant level of protests over the Ukraine funding and none where there is a public support for leaving NATO. (Hungary, Italy, France and to a smaller degree Germany) – and in each of those a politician standing on a platform of leaving NATO and supporting Putin would face certain electoral defeat.
I do not trust your evidence, I am too old for that. MAINSTREAM MEDIA is totally DISCREDITED.
I used to read DZ, SD, SPIEGEL, FAZ, all of them are no more than governmental narrative, propaganda rags like in any dictatorship, like in Ukraine the Zelensky press. Democracy is a joke without a free press.
In the states now, I don’t touch the NYT or WP with a ten foot pole, the same for TV news.
So what sources do you trust? Debating anything is very difficult if there is only the anecdotal evidence of the debater or assertions.
I’d still argue that the results of our elections might give you a fair clue that there is no widespread desire to leave NATO, but I’d expect that you suggest that our democracy is also warped?
So you will be willing to fight for Ukraine, war in your country is OK with you to gain what? Do you believe Russia was ever interested in invading little Denmark? You think the German people like the Americans better after they blew up the pipelines and getting economically destroyed? There are some flags and they are organized by government organizations too, the press is controlled, same as here, critical voices will not be allowed on MS TV. I do see DW and have to say other than propaganda there is nothing, good classical music they do sometimes. People who rely on MSM for information are not informed.
There will only be war in my country (Denmark/Lithuania) if Putin attacks, if he does so then I most certainly will be willing (even If less qualified than Zelenskyy) for our liberty from the kind of absence of democracy and economic prosperity that Putin would give us.
if so only as a hook to take NATO forces by flanking them – I’ve met one of the Polish soldiers who was tasked with that operation – but if we ignore the Soviet times, then no I do not think invading Denmark is on Putin’s list – I can’t say the same for the country where my in-laws live (Lithuania) though.
First point the pipeline had stopped operating Gazprom had cut deliveries
Second point – Germany was investing in regassification capacity to end dependence on Russian gas
Third point – because of points one and two, very far from a majority of Germans believe that the US/UK did it.
Fourth point – though i trouble few Germans believe that the German economy is being destroyed.
Critical voices are being allowed on TV here and the flags are also on private buildings though less ostentatiously so as flags are expensive, but stickers on cars, and changes on social media too – and take note I have not done any of this, yet I’m very much in support of Ukraine against Putin.
Regular German TV however shows quite a few critical voices but likely not as many as you would like – DW less so. But this could also be linked to the fact that a left politician got angry crowd reactions at her own party rally for just suggesting that this war was NATO’s fault – when you have that reaction from a very left of middle voting crowd the critical voices perhaps start self censuring.
Do you really believe the Ukrainian people willingly annihilate their own country and willingly perish for the big gift of NATO membership?
Zelensky does it for multimillion $$$ and mansions and the yacht that no one knows who owns it,( most likely it is Zelensky’s property for the time when he retires in Monaco /s), but he is not willing to perish for it. Or do you think he would wear a real uniform and carry a real gun and join the soldiers where the real dying occurs, like the front?
Let me put it a different way – I see no evidence that a large portion of the Ukrainians are unwilling to fight for their freedom – and before you get too eager to say that the MSM would not report it if they did, the MSM did report on the rather limited protests in Odesa just recently so it is not as if people cannot protest.
If he was so corrupt why did Putin not just bribe him? If he was so unwilling to risk his own life why did he stay on when offered a ride, if he is so unwilling to risk his own life why did he appear in Izium, kherson and Bakhmut? The idea that he is just in it for the money is just not supported with the available evidence.
I would think it was a really absurd waste of talent – I would not ask it of Mr. shirtless he man Putin – nor of Zelenskyy he does far more for his country by the way he gets the west to support it – and he is at no small risk of being assasinated, and at 44 with no prior military training, he probably would not achieve a lot on the battlefield.
Right on Renate. ZelBoy wears camo, but we ain’t seen him on the front yet! And if I’m not mistaken, he and the missus are coming to ‘Murka!
Hope he’s got a lot of security…oh wait, maybe not 😁
If they don’t toe the line they get punished. In big nations with big industries they play hardball, little Denmark has no inkling how real big money and politics work.
The electorate in little Denmark is supporting the NATO/EU line on Ukraine – very much so – no need for any punishments at all.
We can be sure, the public mind has been manipulated like in all other nations. Anyone who says anything nice about Putin will be called names and insults. Social media platforms are being blocked or Pay-Pal blocks their money transfers, nothing new about that. In a real democracy there are people with different opinions, we have no free press and no different opinions, and people who do have differences are quiet, it takes civil courage to disagree knowing they will gang up against you.
Either you have a time inconsistency problem (we could not have managed to manipulate public opinion that fast) or you have the problem that public opinion has been manipulated consistently since 2014 (if not 2008 or even longer) – in which case you are just looking at how people think given the people they elect.
Not sure you should take the voices of the shouting heads on the net as public opinion.
Not that I am familiar with – as far as I can see there are plenty of very pro Russian sites out there – Pay-Pal I do not know about – have they been pressured to do so?
There most certainly are people with different opinions in European press and they are not silenced – but they do face the criticism of the people they disagree with – and yes that can at times take quite nasty form – if you look at this site you will frequently see people accuse e.g. me of different less than nice things – I seldom reply with insults back – so it comes from both sides – it unfortunately is part of a democratic debate.
I.e. in a democracy there will be anti democratic people calling for banning other people’s rights to voice their opinion or trying to goad them into silence themselves through insults and the like – or to put in a different way – you cannot have the debate necessary for a democratic society if you want a safe-space.
If we can even call them “ human”, Renate.
They seem to be anti -human, with their penchant for destroying life.
The only people who support war with Russia are the Poles and the 3 little Baltic nations, and even they would not support real war in their countries, the paid elite yes, but not the people.
Germans are being forced with sanctions and the blowup of the pipelines to toe the line and also money changes hands I am sure. Von der Leyen’s husband has nice pharma connections and she did well when she was leading military department. Just think, Olaf knows who sabotaged the pipelines but refuses to tell the people or government elected opposition PMs who did it. Now tell me, why he can’t tell. Do you have a plausible explanation for that little issue? I watched Scholz being humiliated by Biden when he took over and answered the pipeline question which was for Scholz and how they know how to handle it. Also there are the scandals of corruption in the EU. Like Wagenknecht said , Germany has the most stupid government ever.
Alice Weidel agrees and so do I.
They would all (the countries) support the war if war is thrust upon them by Putin – in the populations the vast majority would support such a war or flee it altogether.
No Scholz is being forced by his coalition partners not so much the US – the general sentiment in Germany is much less war like than in e.g. Poland for very good historical reasons, but support for Putin is nearly completely absent.
The general consensus here in Europe was that she was a failure as a defense minister (I think it is an unfair criticism as she took over a failure but that is a different matter).
1) He does not know the Swedes and the Danish governments may know, but Scholz only know what they are telling him.
2) With a heck of a lot at risk and very little to gain why are you so sure the US(UK) did it?
3) with so much to potentially gain and so little at risk why are you so sure the Russians did not do it?
Because he does not know more than the Danes and Swedes are telling him!?
yes the Russians may have done it!
Do you have a link for that?
There are (scandals of) corruption in nearly all governments if there are none then the scandal is that they are being kept a secret.
if your line is that the Ukrainians are reprehensive because they (seem) neo-Nazi then why would you trust the word of a far right politician??? And a hypocritical one at that:
So just out of interest are you yourself far right?
Well that is pure fiction. Trust me the Europeans are not rooting for Russia to win and end NATO.
I have to believe that many Europeans are keeping fingers crossed for NEGOTIATIONS.
Manny do, same as here, you may not believe it but here too. The level of info is important. Not all Germans were Nazis. Having different opinions has consequences here too and you know it. We have a corporate owned and controlled press. The FBI paid twitter millions to sanitize the Biden name. And they did it.
I would like read that story.
You will but it won’t be the war that ends NATO.. It’ll be the sanctions.
The phrase “hoisted up on their own petard” somehow comes to mind.
Here’s a whole list of sources, ‘reliable’ ones you would approve of on that subject. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=end+of+nato&ia=web
Here’s a list of sources that support your position. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=end+of+nato&ia=web
Thanks for the link. Consortium News at the to p of the list I seldom miss, but Feb. was long ago.
I really, really want to stomp on Joe’s aviator sunglasses!
Would that make you feel better?
Depends on if he was wearing them at the time.
…And, if he was wearing Depends?…
I’ll help, Wars…wearing my cowgirl boots 😁
Those things’ll blast any object in question to smithereens !
“Wartime purchasing power”?… I’m slightly jealous… Of course, I wouldn’t fund wars… I’D FUND PARTIES FOR EVERYONE!
For all those billions and trillions, the entire world could stay lit up for a heck of a long time… (In a good way, of course…..)
I’m in, Donna! 😁
Or a permanent endowment for HBCUs could be established forever.
A healthy cynic?………………………….. 😉
Donna, I’m gettin’ me a brand new hip next month, so I’ll be dancing at that party! I’ll teach y’all the two-step 😁
And Wars, you’re my dancin’ partner, like it or not 😉
Biden’s insanity has only one opponent. Isn’t it ironic that the Russian people are the ones we have to call on to be the adults in the room.
Russian people support bombing of cities and killing of civilians. So how are they the adults in the room?
American people support bombing of cities and killing of civilians. So how are they the adults in the room? How quickly you forgot about all the countries Wash. bombed since WWII. Sad.
The New York City housing authority estimates that over $40 billion is required to fully address the repair backlog needs of its public housing, and this figure could grow to nearly $70 billion by 2028. This $45 billion is a criminal waste of public money.
Americans need to sacrifice more for those goodies Wash. gets from the war industry. You should know that by now.
Plenty of pigs feeding at the trough.
The good thing about that AJ is they produce a lot of Methane and expel it into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming…
Strange how it always seems to get emitted through the wrong end…
That will just be more black market weapons the US taxpayer is paying for ending up to kill more Africans. Those weapons are appearing in sub-Sahara Africa according to Nigeria’s president.He warned that weapons and ammunition used in the war in Ukraine are winding up in the hands of “terrorists” in the Lake Chad region of Africa. President Muhammadu Buhari made the comments last week from the Nigerian capital of Abuja.
AND THE MSM IS SILENT ON THIS. EVEN SOME SOURCES SAID THE PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA IS A LIAR.
Of course, we must believe a source like the MSM with its proven track record of lying, and not President Buhari.
Big Rx got their mega payoff, now its the war industry’s turn to get anointed with billions. Next will be the insurance corps.? Hey, it’s payback time in Wash. (with our stolen wages). Want a government? You got one. Republics are a symbiosis of wealth and power, exchanging more wealth and power to business and government. It’s a vicious cycle of death, theft and destruction that’s visited on those who pay for it all. Wait ’till WWIII if you don’t believe it.
Don’t worry. There will be a new slogan in 3 years.
The slogan will be modified every 4 years.
I really worry about the fact that it appears that there are no rational actors manipulating the ramshackle controls of this rampaging death-machine. The stupid leading the ignorant.
Comments are closed.