All Things Russia & Ukraine

[PizzaSnake]

He's just having fun. He doesn't care about US spending at all (never has in a decade+ of postings) and is just poking the rest of us who do care.

During that time, we did not enter any new wars & we've been winding down the ones we've been involved in.

And? What does that have to do with your sudden and absurd issue with money?

Trump increased US spending by 66% in just four years, OS. You didn't make a peep. You didn't care.

Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.
I try to stick to the areas where I have some first hand knowledge.

This is optional military spending on something which is not a threat to us & cannot be prevented without the kinetic involvement of our forces, imo.

We do not have the support for a WW-II level of national commitment, which is what will be required to restore Ukraine's lost territory & to sustain & rebuild such a large, devastated nation, on the borders of a hostile Russia & the waters & airspace which they dominate.
If it was an ez win, with no potential blowback, I'd say -- do it.

“This is optional military spending on something which is not a threat to us.”

Really? Not a threat to “us”? Who is this “us” and how are you defining “threat”?

So you think that appeasing Putin would not result in a threat to the US? World has changed a lot since you were in the game.

[old salt]

Looks lie I'm not a member of the Trump wing of the GOP :

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2022/ ... ay/374977/

Biden Is Arming Ukraine To ‘Play For a Tie,’ Some America-First GOPers Say
The view reveals disagreement even among Trump-following Republicans about how to respond to Russia’s invasion.
by Jacqueline Feldscher

The America-first faction of the Republican party is at war with itself over how much the United States should be helping Ukraine in the lead-up to the November election.

Some non-interventionist Republicans say President Joe Biden is doing too much to help Ukraine, sending massive amounts of money and weapons with no plan for how the war ends while ignoring trouble back home. Others in the Trump wing of the party, however, argued this week that Biden is acting too slowly. He is giving the Ukrainian troops just enough to prolong the conflict and prevent defeat, they say, when he should be sending even more weapons to score a decisive victory over Russia.

“We’ve got to provide what it takes to win that war and the sooner the better,” Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said Monday at the America First Agenda Summit in Washington, which also included a Tuesday keynote from former president Donald Trump that focused on public safety and police. “My outcome that I want to see…is that we absolutely annihilate the Russian forces and we get them to crawl back into Russia so bloodied and bruised that they can’t come back,” Ernst said.

Republicans Are Split Over Ukraine, Threatening a Rare Bipartisan Consensus

What Would Ukrainian ‘Victory’ Look Like? GOP Lawmaker Asks

Republicans at the conference slammed President Joe Biden for “slowly doling out” weapons to Ukraine and not fully meeting the Ukrainian request for equipment, and also said Russian leader Vladimir Putin felt he could launch the invasion now because he saw “weakened American leadership” under Biden.

The Biden administration has sent more than $7 billion in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine since Russia invaded in February. However, the administration has stopped short of providing some of the most advanced weapons that Ukrainian officials have been asking for. On Friday, Pentagon officials said they would send four more High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems to Ukraine, bringing the total pledged to 16. But Ukrainian officials have said they need at least 100 of the long-range rocket launchers to beat back Russia. Ukrainian troops have also asked for Western jets, which the White House has so far declined to send, though officials acknowledged it was being considered.

That’s not enough, according to some Republicans.

“This administration is helping them play for a tie. Actually, right now they’re helping them lose slowly,” Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., said at the summit. “Instead of going for the win right now and helping the Ukrainians when they’re at their weakest, we’re going to fiddle fart around and provide them just enough rather than help them with what they need.”

The conversation about arming Ukraine shows a divide within the America First section of the Republican Party. Some Democrats and conservative analysts have predicted a GOP-controlled Congress would cut off aid to Ukraine because of America Firsters who shy away from traditional interventionist views.

"At the beginning, there was a bum rush by neoconservatives using everyone’s outrage at Putin and Biden’s inability to project strength," said Russ Vought, president of the Center for Renewing America and former director of the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget. "I think the outrage of that moment has settled into a realistic assessment of where we are, and that is: we can’t be in a situation where we are telling a country like Ukraine that was once a part of Russia 'as long as it takes'.”

At the two-day America First conference, which was hosted by the America First Policy Institute, lawmakers and former Trump administration officials also emphasized the importance of burden-sharing with European allies and the threat posed by China, both key messages during the Trump administration.

[old salt]

He's just having fun. He doesn't care about US spending at all (never has in a decade+ of postings) and is just poking the rest of us who do care.

During that time, we did not enter any new wars & we've been winding down the ones we've been involved in.

And? What does that have to do with your sudden and absurd issue with money?

Trump increased US spending by 66% in just four years, OS. You didn't make a peep. You didn't care.

Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.
I try to stick to the areas where I have some first hand knowledge.

This is optional military spending on something which is not a threat to us & cannot be prevented without the kinetic involvement of our forces, imo.

We do not have the support for a WW-II level of national commitment, which is what will be required to restore Ukraine's lost territory & to sustain & rebuild such a large, devastated nation, on the borders of a hostile Russia & the waters & airspace which they dominate.
If it was an ez win, with no potential blowback, I'd say -- do it.

“This is optional military spending on something which is not a threat to us.”

Really? Not a threat to “us”? Who is this “us” and how are you defining “threat”?

So you think that appeasing Putin would not result in a threat to the US? World has changed a lot since you were in the game.

Russia is not a threat to the US unless things escalate to an intercontinental nuclear exchange.
During the Cold War they were an everyday threat to attack & overrun our military bases in W Europe & sink our warships at sea.
They are no longer that threat.

[a fan]

“This administration is helping them play for a tie. Actually, right now they’re helping them lose slowly,” Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., said at the summit. “Instead of going for the win right now and helping the Ukrainians when they’re at their weakest, we’re going to fiddle fart around and provide them just enough rather than help them with what they need.”

Who doesn't know this? Literally no one.

What's this genius Waltz's plan if we give Ukraine too many weapons, and they attack Russian soil?




There is no winning move here.

-Do nothing, and who the F knows what Putin would do, both in Ukraine, and with other bordering nations. And what message would that send to China?

-Arm/fund Ukraine too much, and what's keeping Ukraine from taking the war to Putin...backing Putin into a corner, and then escalating?

[a fan]

Russia is not a threat to the US unless things escalate to an intercontinental nuclear exchange.

That's odd....you mocked both Obama and yours truly when I told you that. "The 80's called"......you mocked Obama for saying that.

What changed your mind? You've done a 180 from your previous positions.

[old salt]

]Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.

That's the point: "somehow" you "found" the time to whine about Biden's spending in Ukraine.
That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

After----coincidentally------not finding the time in four years of Trump to make one single solitary sole complaint about all this reckless spending.
I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

This is how you operate: when a D is in charge, you throw the kitchen sink at every decision, explaining how it's bad. This time, hilariously, you're griping about money, grasping at straws to throw at Biden....when you transparently don't care about Federal spending, and never have in a decade plus of point.

When a R is in charge, out comes the peripatetic Old Salt, telling all of us how hard it is to execute foreign policy.
I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

It renders your commentary pointless, and it's why your fellow posters are all giving you grief. You're hitting Biden for doing what you'd normally support... if Biden simply had a R by his name, OS.

You'd be asking us: "what's Biden supposed to do here...he's between a rock and a hard place, and our NATO allies have left him twisting in the wind"
imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide. He says he needs 100 HIMARS, we only have 410 for our own forces. We can't give him any weapons that would be compromised if captured by the Russians. The more we provide, the more Russia will ecalate. Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

And you'd be right.

[Typical Lax Dad]

]Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.

That's the point: "somehow" you "found" the time to whine about Biden's spending in Ukraine.
That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

After----coincidentally------not finding the time in four years of Trump to make one single solitary sole complaint about all this reckless spending.
I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

This is how you operate: when a D is in charge, you throw the kitchen sink at every decision, explaining how it's bad. This time, hilariously, you're griping about money, grasping at straws to throw at Biden....when you transparently don't care about Federal spending, and never have in a decade plus of point.

When a R is in charge, out comes the peripatetic Old Salt, telling all of us how hard it is to execute foreign policy.
I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

It renders your commentary pointless, and it's why your fellow posters are all giving you grief. You're hitting Biden for doing what you'd normally support... if Biden simply had a R by his name, OS.

You'd be asking us: "what's Biden supposed to do here...he's between a rock and a hard place, and our NATO allies have left him twisting in the wind"
imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide. He says he needs 100 HIMARS, we only have 150 for our own forces. We can't give him any weapons that would be compromised if captured by the Russians. The more we provide, the more Russia will ecalate. Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

And you'd be right.

You done gone cheap!

[old salt]

Russia is not a threat to the US unless things escalate to an intercontinental nuclear exchange.

That's odd....you mocked both Obama and yours truly when I told you that. "The 80's called"......you mocked Obama for saying that.

What changed your mind? You've done a 180 from your previous positions.

At THAT time Russia was still our most powerful military adversary, but they were not challenging, confronting or harassing us at sea or in the air. They have since been overtaken by China.

That was asked in 2012 when Pax Americana was still in place. Shortly thereafter, Russia intervened in Syria, annexed Crimea, & recognized 2 Russian separatist breakaway republics in Ukraine.

[a fan]

That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

Great. Stick to that. And don't talk about the financial component...which you plainly don't care about.

I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

Right. Compartmentalize the spending so that you can excuse reckless spending in your mind. Neat trick.

I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

Of course they are. They always do for you. You must made my point, thank you.

imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide.

Who says he's not doing that? We have no clue.

You keep implying that Biden can control both Putin and Zelensky....when you know that's just not possible.

Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

He already HAS joined that consensus, for heaven's sake. Why do you think he's arming them the way he is???

[a fan]

Russia is not a threat to the US unless things escalate to an intercontinental nuclear exchange.

That's odd....you mocked both Obama and yours truly when I told you that. "The 80's called"......you mocked Obama for saying that.

What changed your mind? You've done a 180 from your previous positions.

At THAT time Russia was still our most powerful military adversary, but they were not challenging, confronting or harassing us at sea or in the air

Right. They were no threat to the US. Just as I said. You're restating my point.

[old salt]

Russia is not a threat to the US unless things escalate to an intercontinental nuclear exchange.

That's odd....you mocked both Obama and yours truly when I told you that. "The 80's called"......you mocked Obama for saying that.

What changed your mind? You've done a 180 from your previous positions.

At THAT time Russia was still our most powerful military adversary, but they were not challenging, confronting or harassing us at sea or in the air

Right. They were no threat to the US. Just as I said. You're restating my point.

it was in response to Pizzasnake.

[old salt]

imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide.

Who says he's not doing that? We have no clue.
If he is, it's not getting through because the unreasonable requests continue.
You keep implying that Biden can control both Putin and Zelensky....when you know that's just not possible.
Biden can respond about why we're not giving Zelensky everything he's asking for.

Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

He already HAS joined that consensus, for heaven's sake. Why do you think he's arming them the way he is???
Then Biden needs to stop talking about winning & fostering unrealistic expectations.

[old salt]

Ukrainian forces have begun the battle to take back Kherson city. This will be a key indicator as to whether or not they can mount a successful counteroffensive to win back territory in the south & stop Russian forces from moving westward to take the 2 key port cities of Mikolaiv & Odesa.

[old salt]

He's just having fun. He doesn't care about US spending at all (never has in a decade+ of postings) and is just poking the rest of us who do care.

During that time, we did not enter any new wars & we've been winding down the ones we've been involved in.

And? What does that have to do with your sudden and absurd issue with money?

Trump increased US spending by 66% in just four years, OS. You didn't make a peep. You didn't care.

You have a very selective memory. You may recall that we both supported Simpson-Bowles & that I laid out, at that time, the tax increases which I supported. I have not changed my opinion. I see no point in beating that same dead horse since neither party seems concerned with ever increasing deficit spending. That does not disqualify anyone from voicing their disagreement with specific spending choices.

I'd appreciate it if you would keep that in mind when I object to the expense of arming Ukraine, prolonging the war, & then rebuilding that devastated country... all of which were unprogrammed emergent expenses.

[a fan]

He's just having fun. He doesn't care about US spending at all (never has in a decade+ of postings) and is just poking the rest of us who do care.

During that time, we did not enter any new wars & we've been winding down the ones we've been involved in.

And? What does that have to do with your sudden and absurd issue with money?

Trump increased US spending by 66% in just four years, OS. You didn't make a peep. You didn't care.

You have a very selective memory. You may recall that we both supported Simpson-Bowles & that I laid out, at that time, the tax increases which I supported.

Oh, i remember. That was when Obama was POTUS, just like millions of your fellow Republicans...you complain about spending when a D is POTUS. Government was bad. Spending was bad, and the Tea Party was furious. I was on board with getting our fiscal house in order, which included tax hikes.

Yet as we all suspected, none of that fiscal concern had ANYTHING to do with spending and our debt. It was all about little D's and an entirely fictional desire for small government.

Trump and his R arrives, spending explodes just as it did under Bush, Bush's father, as well as Reagan. And to make matters permanently worse, Trump cut the firetruck out of taxes on multinational corporations as well as guys like you and me.....crippling our country for years to come.

You didn't say a word, and neither did the rest of the R's on the board save Cradle. Tea Party disappeared, and FoxNews "forgot" to tell their viewers that all this borrowed and spending was bad. Gee, another Xmas Miracle! And posters here were hilariously lecturing me about how "these tax cuts will pay for themselves, and I just need to be patient", and "how could you possibly know that this tax cut won't work?"

Remember how much Trump handed out to BigAg? Did you complain? Nope. And your party conveniently forgot who the F Simpson and Bowles were, just as they always do when they arrive in the White House.

And the other thing I remember about the Obama years? You held him-----not Congress, not the Republicans------ONLY Obama responsible for the sequester, and the 'hollowing out of our military". You told me that a real leader would find a way to properly fund our country.

Sorry, but your fiscal concerns are entirely party based.

I'd appreciate it if you would keep that in mind when I object to the expense of arming Ukraine, prolonging the war, & then rebuilding that devastated country... all of which were unprogrammed emergent expenses.

You don't get to make a comment over a decade ago about Obama's spending, and then "forget" to make a single comment about reckless borrowed spending coupled with reckless tax cuts during Trump....and then act like spending always matters to you. it doesnt, sorry.

[old salt]

He's just having fun. He doesn't care about US spending at all (never has in a decade+ of postings) and is just poking the rest of us who do care.

During that time, we did not enter any new wars & we've been winding down the ones we've been involved in.

And? What does that have to do with your sudden and absurd issue with money?

Trump increased US spending by 66% in just four years, OS. You didn't make a peep. You didn't care.

You have a very selective memory. You may recall that we both supported Simpson-Bowles & that I laid out, at that time, the tax increases which I supported.

Oh, i remember. That was when Obama was POTUS, just like millions of your fellow Republicans...you complain about spending when a D is POTUS. Government was bad. Spending was bad, and the Tea Party was furious. I was on board with getting our fiscal house in order, which included tax hikes.

Yet as we all suspected, none of that fiscal concern had ANYTHING to do with spending and our debt. It was all about little D's and an entirely fictional desire for small government.

Trump and his R arrives, spending explodes just as it did under Bush, Bush's father, as well as Reagan. And to make matters permanently worse, Trump cut the firetruck out of taxes on multinational corporations as well as guys like you and me.....crippling our country for years to come.

You didn't say a word, and neither did the rest of the R's on the board save Cradle. Tea Party disappeared, and FoxNews "forgot" to tell their viewers that all this borrowed and spending was bad. Gee, another Xmas Miracle! And posters here were hilariously lecturing me about how "these tax cuts will pay for themselves, and I just need to be patient", and "how could you possibly know that this tax cut won't work?"

Remember how much Trump handed out to BigAg? Did you complain? Nope. And your party conveniently forgot who the F Simpson and Bowles were, just as they always do when they arrive in the White House.

And the other thing I remember about the Obama years? You held him-----not Congress, not the Republicans------ONLY Obama responsible for the sequester, and the 'hollowing out of our military". You told me that a real leader would find a way to properly fund our country.

Sorry, but your fiscal concerns are entirely party based.

I'd appreciate it if you would keep that in mind when I object to the expense of arming Ukraine, prolonging the war, & then rebuilding that devastated country... all of which were unprogrammed emergent expenses.

You don't get to make a comment over a decade ago about Obama's spending, and then "forget" to make a single comment about reckless borrowed spending coupled with reckless tax cuts during Trump....and then act like spending always matters to you. it doesnt, sorry.

Obama was President for 8 years. That's when Simpson-Bowles came up. When else was I supposed to support it ?
I told you more than once why I've always supported Aq subsidies, under all administrations, all the way back to Soil Bank days, as the only way US farmers can compete with your subsidized Bavarian farmer friends & NAFTA depressed priced produce from Oaxaca. They are like military spending -- something we cannot realistically eliminate as a nation. Now who's going to grow the grain to feed the world to replace what's bottled up in the Black Sea ? ...& who the F appointed you the proctor on who can comment on what & when ? If my preferences seem party based to you it's because I disapprove of many of the Dems spending choices (which they use to hold military spending hostage), yet I don't read you hectoring your fellow liberals who support them while complaining about military spending. It's the way the logs are rolled & the pork is barreled. You have to put up with what you don't want to get what you really need.

[DocBarrister]

]Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.

That's the point: "somehow" you "found" the time to whine about Biden's spending in Ukraine.
That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

After----coincidentally------not finding the time in four years of Trump to make one single solitary sole complaint about all this reckless spending.
I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

This is how you operate: when a D is in charge, you throw the kitchen sink at every decision, explaining how it's bad. This time, hilariously, you're griping about money, grasping at straws to throw at Biden....when you transparently don't care about Federal spending, and never have in a decade plus of point.

When a R is in charge, out comes the peripatetic Old Salt, telling all of us how hard it is to execute foreign policy.
I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

It renders your commentary pointless, and it's why your fellow posters are all giving you grief. You're hitting Biden for doing what you'd normally support... if Biden simply had a R by his name, OS.

You'd be asking us: "what's Biden supposed to do here...he's between a rock and a hard place, and our NATO allies have left him twisting in the wind"
imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide. He says he needs 100 HIMARS, we only have 410 for our own forces. We can't give him any weapons that would be compromised if captured by the Russians. The more we provide, the more Russia will ecalate. Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

And you'd be right.

I don’t understand what you want to happen in Ukraine. Putin clearly won’t accept anything less than regime change and de facto control of all of Ukraine. Lavrov said as much.

Do you want Ukraine to simply call it quits and surrender to Putin?

You do understand that Putin won’t settle for anything less, correct?

So what are you proposing? Putin is not going to stop this war until he achieves regime change in Kyiv or until he loses this war.

What is it that you want to see happen?

DocBarrister

[a fan]

Obama was President for 8 years. That's when Simpson-Bowles came up.

You're making my point: why did it come up then, and not under Trump? Because you and your fellow voters are lying, and don't care about spending, the debt, and the big government you love....but clutch pearls and pretend you don''t.

So "whoops" you "accidentally" didn't notice any of Trump's massive spending increases pre-covid. I posted all about it, and even cited bills for posters who hilariously didn't believe me when I told them about the spending.

I told you more than once why I've always supported Aq subsidies, under all administrations, all the way back to Soil Bank days, as the only way US farmers can compete with your subsidized Bavarian farmer friends & NAFTA depressed priced produce from Oaxaca.

It isn't "NAFTA depressed", OS. American farmers are competing with Mexican farmers. This is the part your team lies about: you clamor for free markets, but don't want to tell your voters what happens when Mexican farmers are happy to work for a couple of dollars a day, and American farmers are not. The Mexican farmers win. Your team needs to stop lying about free markets improving American's quality of life.

Free markets by definition means that labor wages will move to the mean. Ask your favorite Friedman-esque Conservative Economist, and he'll tell you the same. Of course, Republican leaders will NEVER tell you this. Which is why American wages have been flat for decades, and Republican leaders are delighted that Republican voters don't understand why. Until you and your fellow voters wake up to this fact, wages will continue to be depressed in most sectors of our economy. Learn to code, or get rid of this free market nonsense. Or, continue to be economically irrelevant.

But the hilarious part is that you're convinced that ONLY farmers have to deal with these free market pressures. What about my company? I'm competing with every other 1st world distillery who have employees that get free government training and health care. Meanwhile, I'm out of pocket for both training AND our employees health care. So where's MY subsidy? Oh, that's right. I don't get one. Because OS sez so.

A bit much to take coming from a guy who's been on the Big Government payroll for his entire career, either directly or indirectly. Good for you, and I mean that------but your idea that ONLY farmers should be protected from the free market is absurd. We don't need American crops any more than we "need" American made spirits. We can, and do, buy from other countries all the time. If we're going to use protectionism...apply it to the entire economy, fairly.

they (farmers0 are like military spending -- something we cannot realistically eliminate as a nation.

I've proven this to be dead wrong. We're in the Republican-championed free market, remember? We can, and do, get grain and food commodities from elsewhere. And as I keep telling you, this is driven largely by our broken immigration/VISA program that you think is a tertiary concern, at best.

Oh well, enjoy your Mexican veggies, I guess. Keep building that wall.

Now who's going to grow the grain to feed the world to replace what's bottled up in the Black Sea ?

Not American farmers. Pity we didn't fix our immigration system like you told me Trump would.

...& who the F appointed you the proctor on who can comment on what & when ?

You're welcome to post all you like. You know PRECISELY what I meant by that comment----you can't claim fiscal conservatism when D's are in office, and not say a word when Trump's in office, and breaks the bank.....without your fellow posters realizing you're feigning concern about bankrolling Ukraine....and all you care about are D's and R's.

If my preferences seem party based to you it's because I disapprove of many of the Dems spending choices (which they use to hold military spending hostage)

Seem? Right.

You can't even tell me what the Dem spending choices are, OS. Or what spending the R's signed up for under Trump. You have NO CLUE what's in those bills, and said as much in your last post.

And you failed to notice, naturally, that Trump's massive spending bill was ENTIRELY separate from the Military Spending Bill. But because you are ALL IN on your party BS, you buy anything they sell to you. So FoxNation tells you that Republicans (snicker) don't fund handouts and socialism---that's ONLY the Democrats....and you believe them, naturally, because you put your brain on the shelf under glass anytime those R's show up on your media feed.

You genuinely think that the only reason Republicans vote for domestic spending is that they have "no choice" if they want their military spending. This is a flat out lie that makes you feel better about your party, OS. It's simply not true.

....yet I don't read you hectoring your fellow liberals who support them while complaining about military spending

FFS, wake up. Liberals BELIEVE in Big Government spending, remember? So why would I "hector" them for doing what they believe? The believe in socialism, remember? It's YOUR party that isn't supposed to vote for those handouts and Big Government, remember?

They also, unlike your team, believe in taxation. Which makes liberals, hilariously, MORE fiscally conservative than your team by a country mile.

It's the way the logs are rolled & the pork is barreled. You have to put up with what you don't want to get what you really need.

1000% untrue. Trump passed a military spending bill all by itself, OS. You'd know that if you paid any attention to spending when your party was in charge. This is why everyone here knows you don't give two figs about spending in Ukraine. You're throwing stones at Biden's little D.

That's it. That's what all your Ukraine complaining is about----Biden is a Dem. The dumbest adult in America understands that Biden is between a rock and a hard place in Ukraine. And after Trump operating for four years without you making a single complaint about his foreign policy, or anything Trump utters-----you hold Biden to an impossible standard that no President can meet.

It's what you do, OS. And it's why everyone here gives your grief. It's Republican horsehockey.

[MDlaxfan76]

I've been having some good popcorn reading this exchange.

[old salt]

]Blah. blah, blah. I don't have the time or interest to whine about every misspent dollar, that you apparently do.

That's the point: "somehow" you "found" the time to whine about Biden's spending in Ukraine.
That's a military & national security issue. Areas which I follow more Closely, In which I have some experience & care enough about to comment.

After----coincidentally------not finding the time in four years of Trump to make one single solitary sole complaint about all this reckless spending.
I did not consider his spending on the military or national security to be reckless. I considered it prudent & long overdue catch up spending.

This is how you operate: when a D is in charge, you throw the kitchen sink at every decision, explaining how it's bad. This time, hilariously, you're griping about money, grasping at straws to throw at Biden....when you transparently don't care about Federal spending, and never have in a decade plus of point.

When a R is in charge, out comes the peripatetic Old Salt, telling all of us how hard it is to execute foreign policy.
I never said it was ez, under any admin. I just feel the Dems are making more mistakes.

It renders your commentary pointless, and it's why your fellow posters are all giving you grief. You're hitting Biden for doing what you'd normally support... if Biden simply had a R by his name, OS.

You'd be asking us: "what's Biden supposed to do here...he's between a rock and a hard place, and our NATO allies have left him twisting in the wind"
imo -- he needs to quietly tell Zelensky to stop asking for what we can't provide. He says he needs 100 HIMARS, we only have 410 for our own forces. We can't give him any weapons that would be compromised if captured by the Russians. The more we provide, the more Russia will ecalate. Biden needs to join the unspoken consensus with our NATO allies that a Ukraine that survives with 80% of it's previous territory is preferable to an open ended conflict, so long as the resulting borders can be defended, make sense ethnically, & provide access to the Black Sea. This conflict is destroying Ukraine & harming all of Europe.

And you'd be right.

I don’t understand what you want to happen in Ukraine. Putin clearly won’t accept anything less than regime change and de facto control of all of Ukraine. Lavrov said as much.

Do you want Ukraine to simply call it quits and surrender to Putin?

You do understand that Putin won’t settle for anything less, correct?

So what are you proposing? Putin is not going to stop this war until he achieves regime change in Kyiv or until he loses this war.

What is it that you want to see happen?

DocBarrister

Putin can't get what his army can't accomplish. Stalemate. Ceasefire in place. Frozen conflict. Life returns to some sense of normalcy.
80% of Ukraine recovers, democratizes, arms itself & prospers, as S Korea has done with only 50% of Korea.