ADVERTISEMENT

Ukraine Funding - Zelenskyy Tap Dancing Away

SamSwimmer

Platinum Buffalo
Aug 16, 2015
5,013
3,598
113
The GOP talks tough but everyone on this board knows Ukraine gonna get dat money. For the party supposedly filled with business geniuses, they're effing terrible at negotiations. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if they vote to fund with zero concessions. Biden is Wellington Wimpy & the GOP are the schmucks who keep giving him hamburgers.
 
Last edited:
RFK Jr is right - the defense contractors are the real stakeholders...

Broken clocks, etc etc

The point wasn’t to help Ukraine it was to hurt Russia. They’ve spent about 3x (finding exact numbers is tough) what we have and they have less to spend in the first place.

I’m not defending that as a justification for how we’ve handled it but it’s the explanation. Kinda ****ed to let Ukraine go to hell to stick a thumb in Russia’s eye? Yeah, that’s geopolitics for you.

Ukraine could fall completely to Russia tomorrow and the US would’ve achieved its overall geopolitical goal with regard to the conflict. Whether that’s the goal we ought to have is a good conversation but acting like we were in it to win it, while forgivable because that’s how it’s been messaged because that’s how it has to be messaged, misses the point.
 
Broken clocks, etc etc


The point wasn’t to help Ukraine it was to hurt Russia. They’ve spent about 3x (finding exact numbers is tough) what we have and they have less to spend in the first place.

I’m not defending that as a justification for how we’ve handled it but it’s the explanation. Kinda ****ed to let Ukraine go to hell to stick a thumb in Russia’s eye? Yeah, that’s geopolitics for you.

Ukraine could fall completely to Russia tomorrow and the US would’ve achieved its overall geopolitical goal with regard to the conflict. Whether that’s the goal we ought to have is a good conversation but acting like we were in it to win it, while forgivable because that’s how it’s been messaged because that’s how it has to be messaged, misses the point.
I think some initial resistance was reasonable…it went on way too long though and started to get shady - the west shutting down peace talks, ?ukraine or west? bombing pipelines, etc.

It seemed we needed to aim at a more pragmatic approach (give them Donbas, etc) much earlier. You had Zelenskyy out there taking about getting Crimea back well after the goose was cooked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mlblack16.
I think some initial resistance was reasonable…it went on way too long though and started to get shady - the west shutting down peace talks, ?ukraine or west? bombing pipelines, etc.

It seemed we needed to aim at a more pragmatic approach (give them Donbas, etc) much earlier. You had Zelenskyy out there taking about getting Crimea back well after the goose was cooked.
You’re still approaching this from the perspective of us caring at all what happens to Ukraine. We don’t.
 
Broken clocks, etc etc


The point wasn’t to help Ukraine it was to hurt Russia. They’ve spent about 3x (finding exact numbers is tough) what we have and they have less to spend in the first place.

I’m not defending that as a justification for how we’ve handled it but it’s the explanation. Kinda ****ed to let Ukraine go to hell to stick a thumb in Russia’s eye? Yeah, that’s geopolitics for you.

Ukraine could fall completely to Russia tomorrow and the US would’ve achieved its overall geopolitical goal with regard to the conflict. Whether that’s the goal we ought to have is a good conversation but acting like we were in it to win it, while forgivable because that’s how it’s been messaged because that’s how it has to be messaged, misses the point.
We actually agree. USA proxy war.

I don't agree with what we are necessarily doing.
 
You’re still approaching this from the perspective of us caring at all what happens to Ukraine. We don’t.
Gotcha.

I don’t fully buy that draining Russia of their resources is worth the literal cost ($).

I’m not a geopolitics expert obviously…but I’m not sure anyone else is either.
 
Gotcha.

I don’t fully buy that draining Russia of their resources is worth the literal cost ($).

I’m not a geopolitics expert obviously…but I’m not sure anyone else is either.
Whether it’s worth it or not is for sure a legitimate argument. All the moves just make way more sense when you get why we’re doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -CarlHungus-
If the GOP refuses to continue funding and then Russia pushes Ukraine’s shit in then it’ll be a very interesting blame game afterward. I’m not sure which side is better at messaging at this point. It used to be the GOP but the democrats have gotten better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -CarlHungus-
Broken clocks, etc etc


The point wasn’t to help Ukraine it was to hurt Russia. They’ve spent about 3x (finding exact numbers is tough) what we have and they have less to spend in the first place.

I’m not defending that as a justification for how we’ve handled it but it’s the explanation. Kinda ****ed to let Ukraine go to hell to stick a thumb in Russia’s eye? Yeah, that’s geopolitics for you.

Ukraine could fall completely to Russia tomorrow and the US would’ve achieved its overall geopolitical goal with regard to the conflict. Whether that’s the goal we ought to have is a good conversation but acting like we were in it to win it, while forgivable because that’s how it’s been messaged because that’s how it has to be messaged, misses the point.
I think you're right in terms of this just being a mission to hurt Putin. No one in their right mind thought Ukraine could win this no matter how the administration spun it. And it's effing sinister they purposely stalled peace talks so Biden could continue piling up tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians (& counting) to try & stick it to Vlad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -CarlHungus-
Zelenskyy is (still) delusional. From NBC News - Biden: How Many More Dead Ukrainians Can We Make Happen for $200 milly?

"Zelenskyy also described his meeting with Biden as a positive one. Asked if he believed Ukraine would win the war, he said: "Yes, of course."​
Time ran a piece just last month on him & the conflict entitled, "Nobody believes in our victory like I do." He's right on that. Not even his advisers believe it. From that article:

It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.”​
 
I think too much is read into that on Z’s side. What’s he supposed to say, “nope this is hopeless, I think we’ll lose”? He’s saying what he has to say as the leader of a country at war.

Privately one hopes he has a realistic outlook on the war and makes strategic decisions based on that understanding, but again I don’t know what anyone expects him to say publicly other than what he has. If you say “we’re never getting Crimea back” then it’s no longer a bargaining chip in negotiations. If you say “Russia is winning and could probably eventually fully win” then you’re just going to tank your side’s morale and encourage the Russians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marshallisqbu
Biden greenlit the use of clusterbombs because of supply issues were running into with US ammo just like three months ago. And now he's giving them another $200 million in advanced weapons that were to be used for protecting Americans. WTF?
 
Can they at least get that dude a tie and jacket? Damn it, I don't like them either but, he doesn't be all tactical all the time.
 
I think too much is read into that on Z’s side. What’s he supposed to say, “nope this is hopeless, I think we’ll lose”? He’s saying what he has to say as the leader of a country at war.

Privately one hopes he has a realistic outlook on the war and makes strategic decisions based on that understanding, but again I don’t know what anyone expects him to say publicly other than what he has. If you say “we’re never getting Crimea back” then it’s no longer a bargaining chip in negotiations. If you say “Russia is winning and could probably eventually fully win” then you’re just going to tank your side’s morale and encourage the Russians.
The Deep State Neocons are playing him like a cheap fiddle. He isn't going to have a country left. But, hey we are draining Russia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -CarlHungus-
The Deep State Neocons are playing him like a cheap fiddle. He isn't going to have a country left. But, hey we are draining Russia.
Biden openly stated he was going to make Saudi Arabia "a pariah." Didn't work. Then, Biden's stated goal of isolating Russia, you guessed it, didn't work. If anything, Russia has now bolstered relations with China & the Saudi's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raleighherdfan
I think too much is read into that on Z’s side. What’s he supposed to say, “nope this is hopeless, I think we’ll lose”? He’s saying what he has to say as the leader of a country at war.

Privately one hopes he has a realistic outlook on the war and makes strategic decisions based on that understanding, but again I don’t know what anyone expects him to say publicly other than what he has. If you say “we’re never getting Crimea back” then it’s no longer a bargaining chip in negotiations. If you say “Russia is winning and could probably eventually fully win” then you’re just going to tank your side’s morale and encourage the Russians.
I get it, but the Crimea talk was so unserious. That was a tell. That had been Russia's since Obama was in office.

You can't use it as "bargaining chip" when you're actively losing and it hasn't even been under your control in nearly a decade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamSwimmer
I get it, but the Crimea talk was so unserious. That was a tell. That had been Russia's since Obama was in office.

You can't use it as "bargaining chip" when you're actively losing and it hasn't even been under your control in nearly a decade.
I’m watching Band of Brothers right now for the first time and there are probably better examples, but it kind of reminds me of the idea that we’d be in “Berlin by Christmas.” It was unrealistic and the people saying it would’ve known it was unrealistic, but you don’t want to message to the guys going in “hey, we’re going to be here a few years, buckle up.”

It probably wouldn’t make a whole lot of difference in negotiations if Z says they will or won’t retake Crimea. I don’t think saying they will hurts him though. Or really matters much at all.
 
I’m watching Band of Brothers right now for the first time and there are probably better examples, but it kind of reminds me of the idea that we’d be in “Berlin by Christmas.” It was unrealistic and the people saying it would’ve known it was unrealistic, but you don’t want to message to the guys going in “hey, we’re going to be here a few years, buckle up.”

It probably wouldn’t make a whole lot of difference in negotiations if Z says they will or won’t retake Crimea. I don’t think saying they will hurts him though. Or really matters much at all.

To me it seemed like a more offensive/forever war approach than a defensive one.

It went from we have to push them back from Donbas to ...and also take Crimea back. Which seemed like a big jump to me. No one was talking about taking Crimea back until we started giving him $....$ to hold Donbas, not take Crimea back.

...and it seemed like an escalation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamSwimmer
Make them define "winning". Otherwise, "winning" will just be until every Ukrainian is deceased. Is the goal just to kill corruption out of the country until no one is left, cause that's still an enormous roadblock to entry into NATO. Not to mention, they're still at war.

 
I’m watching Band of Brothers right now for the first time and there are probably better examples, but it kind of reminds me of the idea that we’d be in “Berlin by Christmas.” It was unrealistic and the people saying it would’ve known it was unrealistic, but you don’t want to message to the guys going in “hey, we’re going to be here a few years, buckle up.”

It probably wouldn’t make a whole lot of difference in negotiations if Z says they will or won’t retake Crimea. I don’t think saying they will hurts him though. Or really matters much at all.
One of the best war series ever. Fabulous series.
 
Zelensky doesn’t think they can win. He wants the money to keep rolling in so he can build his golden parachute longer. That’s all.

You never say you are going to win unless you fully intend on winning if you are the US. You do not want to be the superpower that doesn’t back up your talk. Biden runs his mouth recklessly in these matters. Knowing the only way Russia was ever going to lose is if the US went in 100%, and knowing the US was never going to go in 100%, Putin always knew victory was his and that he would come out looking like he bested the US.

The only way the draining Russia of resources makes any sense is if you also believe that war with Russia is coming and imminent. Yes, we made them spend a lot of money, but it’s not like they won’t be back at full strength in 10 years. That weakness is very temporary.
 
Is is "over"?? you lying moron oath breaker
Stalemate with thousands dying. Our Join Chiefs said it would likely be over quickly. Now we are just funneling millions into a corrupt govt involved in a Stalemate wirh another corrupt government over territory thst doesn't mean a hill of beans in our national interest.
 
Stalemate with thousands dying. Our Join Chiefs said it would likely be over quickly. Now we are just funneling millions into a corrupt govt involved in a Stalemate wirh another corrupt government over territory thst doesn't mean a hill of beans in our national interest.
Millions would be one thing…
 
  • Like
Reactions: i am herdman
Stalemate with thousands dying. Our Join Chiefs said it would likely be over quickly. Now we are just funneling millions into a corrupt govt involved in a Stalemate wirh another corrupt government over territory thst doesn't mean a hill of beans in our national interest.
You're just an unintelligent and selfish hypocrite who is stupid enough to believe we don't realize your unintelligent and selfish hypocrisy. Thousands dying is inconsequential to you as evidenced in your never having any concern for thousands dying in afghanistan over a 20 year period. That same hypocrisy is obvious when you talk about the money spent. Once again you never mentioned cost regarding afghanistan that cost 26x what we've spent in Ukraine. You agreed to turn over afghanistan to a corrupt government after all that cost, and you agreed with your orange jesus when he set the timeline to do so.
 
You're just an unintelligent and selfish hypocrite who is stupid enough to believe we don't realize your unintelligent and selfish hypocrisy. Thousands dying is inconsequential to you as evidenced in your never having any concern for thousands dying in afghanistan over a 20 year period. That same hypocrisy is obvious when you talk about the money spent. Once again you never mentioned cost regarding afghanistan that cost 26x what we've spent in Ukraine. You agreed to turn over afghanistan to a corrupt government after all that cost, and you agreed with your orange jesus when he set the timeline to do so.
One big difference between Afghanistan and Ukraine. We had American soldiers in Afghanistan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thunderscope
One big difference between Afghanistan and Ukraine. We had American soldiers in Afghanistan.
That IS a big difference, oath breaker. A difference I'm happy about.

Here's another: 2 TRILLION DOLLARS in afghanistan, 70 (3 1/2%)Billion in Ukraine. At the rate were spending per year, we won't equal afghanistan spending until about the year 2079.
 
Last edited:
You're just an unintelligent and selfish hypocrite who is stupid enough to believe we don't realize your unintelligent and selfish hypocrisy. Thousands dying is inconsequential to you as evidenced in your never having any concern for thousands dying in afghanistan over a 20 year period. That same hypocrisy is obvious when you talk about the money spent. Once again you never mentioned cost regarding afghanistan that cost 26x what we've spent in Ukraine. You agreed to turn over afghanistan to a corrupt government after all that cost, and you agreed with your orange jesus when he set the timeline to do so.
There are thousand dying in Africa, among other places. We had a national interest in Afghanistan following 9-11. We also had service members serving there and were fighting enemies of the USA who had previously helped or assisted in attacking us. What national interest do we have in some Russian speaking territory in eastern Ukraine?
 
  • Like
Reactions: thunderscope
We had a national interest in Afghanistan following 9-11.
Yeah, for about the first 5 of 20 years.
What national interest do we have in some Russian speaking territory in eastern Ukraine?
If we fail to act in Ukraine it would embolden Vladimir Putin and his fellow autocrats by demonstrating the United States will surrender in the face of saber-rattling

If we sit back and watch russia take ukraine, wonder if that would embolden china regarding taiwan.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: WVUSerg
That IS a big difference, oath breaker. A difference I'm happy about.

Here's another: 2 TRILLION DOLLARS in afghanistan, 70 (3 1/2%)Billion in Ukraine. At the rate were spending per year, we won't equal afghanistan spending until about the year 2079.
^^^^dumbass is going to dumbass
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT