War

printer said:

The Ukrainians will have their hands full with the servicing of the F-15's, adding two more different airframes would be a bit much.

Click to expand...

I don’t think Ukraine is slated to receive any Eagles, though this guy makes a good argument for supplying them.

Moderates pitch ‘pared down’ bipartisan spending deal for Ukraine, border security
Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) on Sunday urged their House colleagues to back their “pared down” proposal for Ukraine aid and border security, claiming the effort could serve as a “pressure point” to get spending passed.

A bipartisan Senate bill that included significant border security reforms and aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan has been stuck in the House for weeks, with top Democrats now pursuing a discharge petition to get a floor vote without the help of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Golden said that effort isn’t likely to succeed, however, instead pitching his own version of the deal, emphasizing that aid for Ukraine is needed immediately.

“This is time-sensitive. It’s existential,” he said in a CBS “Face the Nation” interview with Margaret Brennan on Sunday. “What our bill does is it combines border security with this foreign aid, both existential, and we are forcing this bill to the floor to make sure that everybody acts.

“Because as President Zelensky said, they have weeks and not months to get reinforcements on the front lines,” he added.

The moderates’ proposal reduces the spending ask from about $60 billion to $49 billion, cutting out humanitarian aid for Israel and Ukraine and adding the strict “remain in Mexico” border policy, all points unpopular with most Democrats.

Golden said that the changes are necessary in order to get something passed, and that the pair are planning an extensive amendment process to make all sides happy.

“The Senate started with a bill. They had to boil it down to whatever could get 60 votes. The House needs to go through a very similar process,” Golden said. “We need to find a way to get a deal that gets us to 218 [votes]. I think a deal like that has to grow out of the middle and is unlikely to begin with a one-party solution.”

Despite the compromises, Fitzpatrick said their potential deal could likely get “super majority” support in the House if it reaches a floor vote and could pass the Senate.

“Ukraine is weeks away from giving up significant ground, and we cannot allow Russia to win,” Fitzpatrick said. “So what we are doing is adding an additional pressure point to get a bill to the floor that has bipartisan support in the House.”

“My conversations with my Senate colleagues, any bill that comes out of the House with bipartisan support, in all likelihood, will emerge out of the Senate,” he added.

Nancy Mace says White House has ‘yet to define mission’ in Ukraine
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said the White House has “yet to define mission” in Ukraine as lawmakers struggle to agree on more support for the country.

House Republicans have held up aid for Ukraine as they have tied additional funding to stricter border security provisions. Mace said on “Fox News Sunday” that she wants the United States to focus on border security before doling out more aid to Ukraine, which just marked its two-year anniversary of fighting Russia.

“The one thing that you did not hear Jake Sullivan or Joe Biden say today or really ever is defining our mission in Ukraine. They have yet to define that mission. They have yet to set the strategy. And they have yet to articulate how are we going to get out of this situation when every dollar we have is given to their country, and it is or is not successful, how do we get out of this?” she said Sunday.

“And you haven’t heard that defined to the American people. You certainly haven’t heard that defined to Congress. If we had the answer, we’d be talking about it and perhaps there’d be more support for it,” Mace added.

Senate negotiators unveiled a bipartisan border security deal earlier this month that included aid for Israel, Ukraine and Indo-Pacific allies, but the effort failed after Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declared it dead on arrival in the House.

The Senate later passed a bill that would authorize funding for Ukraine, Israel and Indo-Pacific allies, but Johnson also rejected that legislation due to the lack of border security provisions. The White House and Democratic leadership have called on Johnson to bring Ukraine aid to the floor, pointing to bipartisan support it had in the Senate.

Mace continued to emphasize the need for border security in her interview on Sunday before passing any aid for Ukraine.

“But the last thing I want to say is that this administration is putting the borders of other nations first rather than our own. Before anything else happens with Ukraine and U.S. funding for Ukraine, I want to know, is what we are doing about invasion and our national security at our southern border. That should be the number one priority of Joe Biden and this administration, full stop,” she said.

cannabineer said:

I’d say not. The Biden administration will save itself a load of noisy grief from the hypocrites by doing things legally, above the board.
That’s why I’m being repetitive about EDA. It gives the President immediate authority to send the goods. If momentum keeps shifting on the front, Ukraine could find itself staring at defeat.

Click to expand...

Well if this continues FOREVER,yes,but mos.?,The Ukrainians,and Zelenskey are pretty shrewd and are playing cards just a bit,they are not in super dire straits in terms of being routed w/a massive Russian armored breakthrough steamrolling to Kyiv and it's way easier defending than attacking, and Russia already showed they are unprofessional as a MF at advancing w/air cover and tight logistical support and they had way more skilled career professional troops that were KIA in that initial fiasco,Ukraine is better armed now than they were at the invasions outset,and the Russian Army has made pretty minimal gains at great cost in their recent W's,they are newer troops also and incapable of stunning blitzkrieg style advances,better trained troops failed before.

printer said:

The Ukrainians will have their hands full with the servicing of the F-15's, adding two more different airframes would be a bit much.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about F15's bro,I said a few dozen A-10's (a pretty durable and unsophisticated tech) and Cobra helicopters(based on the venerable Huey's from Nam),but an attack chopper the Marines use that has been around 40/50 yrs. I compared the training/complexity of these to the F-16 training that is ongoing.I'd never recommend F-15's,we just need to get them in a effective/more versatile western jet like the F-16 ,the Eagle is larger,has 2 engines,and is primarily an air superiority fighter in most incarnations except for the F-15 E(a fighter bomber that is more recent) and the brand new F-15 EX,just being manufactured now in the US for the USAF,the two systems I recommended are ground support ,tank busting craft that I think the savvy Ukranians would be faster to master than the F-16 while really adding some lethal capability to Ukraine.

CCGNZ said:

I never said anything about F15's bro,I said a few dozen A-10's (a pretty durable and unsophisticated tech) and Cobra helicopters(based on the venerable Huey's from Nam),but an attack chopper the Marines use that has been around 40/50 yrs. I compared the training/complexity of these to the F-16 training that is ongoing.I'd never recommend F-15's,we just need to get them in a effective/more versatile western jet like the F-16 ,the Eagle is larger,has 2 engines,and is primarily an air superiority fighter in most incarnations except for the F-15 E(a fighter bomber that is more recent) and the brand new F-15 EX,just being manufactured now in the US for the USAF,the two systems I recommended are ground support ,tank busting craft that I think the savvy Ukranians would be faster to master than the F-16 while really adding some lethal capability to Ukraine.

Click to expand...

Brain freeze, meant F-16. The F-16's are coming and will need a workshop to maintain them. Adding more to the mix might be a little problematic. When they can not even get ammunition to feed the machinery they have now I can not see them getting the funding for more aircraft.

Sativied said:

Macron says sending western troops to Ukraine cannot be ruled out

French president also drops opposition to artillery purchases for Kyiv from outside the EU

www.ft.com

Click to expand...

i really hope it doesn't come to that.

Ukraine already has the legions, surprised they're not building them up

France’s prime minister, Gabriel Attal, said that nothing was off the table in western efforts to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine. Speaking a day after Macron said that sending troops was not excluded, Attal said that “you can’t rule anything out in a war.” Meanwhile, Sweden’s prime minister said that sending troops to Ukraine was not a relevant question for Nato at the moment. Ulf Kristersson added that “the French tradition is not the Swedish tradition” when it comes to “traditions of engagement.” The Kremlin said that sending troops to Ukraine was “absolutely not in the interests of these countries.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said many countries "are keeping a fairly sober assessment of the potential dangers of such actions."

"The French tradition is not the Swedish tradition when it comes to traditions of engagement."

I'd resent that remark if I were France, or French. It's far more loaded than it may seem. Not cool Sweden.

That said, they just joined NATO and France is like let's go!

BudmanTX said:

i really hope it doesn't come to that.

Ukraine already has the legions, surprised they're not building them up

Click to expand...

I'm conflicted. With scenarios like that I realize I think differently perhaps because I don't have kids and most of the family and friends I love are old and had a good life, especially compared to people in Ukraine now. With that said, I'd prefer a world where we sent UN or NATO troops the first week Russia invaded. I do not believe Russia is willing to self-destruct over any amount of Ukraine territory and personally I'm willing to call their bluff. Even if I think they would, we cannot continue to operate and live under a nuclear blackmail by Russia. It's perhaps overdue. If that's the reasoning of the French, vive la France. It's not atypical for Macron to make such bold statements though.

Yeah, it's a good thing I'm not making these decisions. Or maybe it's not.

Sativied said:

I'm conflicted. With scenarios like that I realize I think differently perhaps because I don't have kids and most of the family and friends I love are old and had a good life, especially compared to people in Ukraine now. With that said, I'd prefer a world where we sent UN or NATO troops the first week Russia invaded. I do not believe Russia is willing to self-destruct over any amount of Ukraine territory and personally I'm willing to call their bluff. Even if I think they would, we cannot continue to operate and live under a nuclear blackmail by Russia. It's perhaps overdue. If that's the reasoning of the French, vive la France. It's not atypical for Macron to make such bold statements though.

Yeah, it's a good thing I'm not making these decisions. Or maybe it's not.

Click to expand...

What an interesting potential development. Leave it to Macron to say the difficult thing. "Can't rule out anything in war". "Nothing was off the table...to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine. I had to laugh when I heard the veiled threat the Russian official made. "not in their interests". Yeah, well, nothing of what Russia is doing in Ukraine is in "their" interests.

printer said:

Click to expand...

Bummer about Sri Lanka sending back draft avoiders. They’ll be strapped into human wave battalions, no doubt.

Sativied said:

I'm conflicted. With scenarios like that I realize I think differently perhaps because I don't have kids and most of the family and friends I love are old and had a good life, especially compared to people in Ukraine now. With that said, I'd prefer a world where we sent UN or NATO troops the first week Russia invaded. I do not believe Russia is willing to self-destruct over any amount of Ukraine territory and personally I'm willing to call their bluff. Even if I think they would, we cannot continue to operate and live under a nuclear blackmail by Russia. It's perhaps overdue. If that's the reasoning of the French, vive la France. It's not atypical for Macron to make such bold statements though.

Yeah, it's a good thing I'm not making these decisions. Or maybe it's not.

Click to expand...

IT is time for European countries to get plucky w/ Russia,with what Russia has showed in Ukraine a force consisting of France/Germany/Poland/Holland/Belgium/Sweden/Finland/the Baltic states/and England would put a ass kicking on Russia conventionally,their combined air forces would rule the skies and the seas w/ combined navies not even including the US.

Fogdog said:

What an interesting potential development. Leave it to Macron to say the difficult thing. "Can't rule out anything in war". "Nothing was off the table...to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine. I had to laugh when I heard the veiled threat the Russian official made. "not in their interests". Yeah, well, nothing of what Russia is doing in Ukraine is in "their" interests.

Click to expand...

Maybe Macron can send the F Foreign Legion to Ukraine,little green men style wearing Ukrainian insignia as "volunteers".

Sativied said:

France’s prime minister, Gabriel Attal, said that nothing was off the table in western efforts to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine. Speaking a day after Macron said that sending troops was not excluded, Attal said that “you can’t rule anything out in a war.” Meanwhile, Sweden’s prime minister said that sending troops to Ukraine was not a relevant question for Nato at the moment. Ulf Kristersson added that “the French tradition is not the Swedish tradition” when it comes to “traditions of engagement.” The Kremlin said that sending troops to Ukraine was “absolutely not in the interests of these countries.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said many countries "are keeping a fairly sober assessment of the potential dangers of such actions."

"The French tradition is not the Swedish tradition when it comes to traditions of engagement."

I'd resent that remark if I were France, or French. It's far more loaded than it may seem. Not cool Sweden.

That said, they just joined NATO and France is like let's go!

Click to expand...

Seems to me that while Russia has a significant population adv. over Ukraine,Mr. Peskov and Putin are talking a game as if they were the USSR manpower wise,NOT,Russia is only Russia now, GONE are the days when they had more tanks than GOD and millions upon millions of Ivans carrying Kalishnikov's. Russia's resources are now more finite than the Soviet days and they are outgunned vs. just the European faction of NATO if the Europeans REALLY wanted to get down to business,They just have a confidence issue from always knowing Uncle Sam is in the house,and he still is,but numbers wise and the recent revelations from Ukraine regarding Russian military capability would have me conclude that a combined arms European military effort would prevail over Russia in a confrontation,I'm not talking taking Moscow here.

CCGNZ said:

Seems to me that while Russia has a significant population adv. over Ukraine,Mr. Peskov and Putin are talking a game as if they were the USSR manpower wise,NOT,Russia is only Russia now, GONE are the days when they had more tanks than GOD and millions upon millions of Ivans carrying Kalishnikov's. Russia's resources are now more finite than the Soviet days and they are outgunned vs. just the European faction of NATO if the Europeans REALLY wanted to get down to business,They just have a confidence issue from always knowing Uncle Sam is in the house,and he still is,but numbers wise and the recent revelations from Ukraine regarding Russian military capability would have me conclude that a combined arms European military effort would prevail over Russia in a confrontation,I'm not talking taking Moscow here.

Click to expand...

Right now, talk is cheap and yet, it seems to have rattled Russia's commanders enough to get their diplomats out there making threats. Just talking about sending NATO troops into Ukraine is an escalation. One that I had not anticipated. I wonder what Putin told Trump to say about this?

I don't think it was a gaffe.


Perhaps it was the beginning of a change in policy -- a trial balloon. IF as Macron said, that victory for Russia in Ukraine is the worst possible outcome for western Europe then this policy must be on the table for consideration. Not right now, but a flood of Russian convicts unleashed on re-conquored Ukrainian territory might change people's perspective.

That said, this would be very unpopular in the US. Biden outright said US boots would not be on the ground in Ukraine. So, it's not something he can talk about heading into this election.

Or maybe it was a gaffe on Macron's part. We can't take the Russian's word for it.

CCGNZ said:

Maybe Macron can send the F Foreign Legion to Ukraine,little green men style wearing Ukrainian insignia as "volunteers".

Click to expand...

maybe Ukraine can take the F Foreign Legion and filter them into the Ukrainian Legions (foreign fighter for Ukraine)