Eddy

The US Congress added an amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act requiring consent from 2/3rds of the Senators or an Act of Congress in order to leave NATO ( Congress passes bill to prevent the president from leaving NATO without approval (msn.com) A President could sort of leave by not co-operating, I suppose.

Quick question on the US political process. Does the vote today mean that the Discharge Bill is no longer relevant? Or is that still hanging around in the background and can be triggered if the Aid bill doesn't pass?

I had a thought over the weekend - so could Ukraine. Let's just say, hypothetically, the next US President was not supportive of Ukraine. Ukraine could attack Russian crude oil production and distribution, purely for self-defence reasons obvs, which would push up petrol/gas prices in the short/medium term, and thus affecting the popularity of said President, just in time for the mid-terms. Admittedly, I am way out of my lane here, but it was an interesting thought experiment. Obviously, no one would ever be that calculating and devious and such a plan could horribly, horribly belly up.

This is the bit I really don't understand. The Ukrainians are targeting refineries, which produce petrol/gas, kerosine, heavy fuels etc. The global oil price is for crude oil, not refined products, and it is global crude oil price that determines how expensive locally refined petrochemical products are, whether that be in the US, Europe, India or anywhere. The Ukrainians have not attacked crude oil production or distribution AFAIK, Hence I can't see how attacking refineries could push up crude oil prices. The present oil price rise is due to Opec+ cutting production and concerns over the Middle East. If you blow up a steel plant it does not push up the price of iron ore. It could well be I'm missing something. I'm happy to be educated because I just can't follow the logic,

Yep, even more so after the horror of Bucha was revealed from what I've read.

Free e-book: War in Ukraine: Conflict, Strategy, and the Return of a Fractured World (Project MUSE - War in Ukraine (jhu.edu)) Found this e-book which is a collection of essays on the invasion (it's from John Hopkins University, released under a Creative Commons licence). The contents and authors are: The Ukraine War and Global Order => Hal Brands 1 Ukraine, Russia, China, and the World => Stephen Kotkin 2 Why Putin Invaded Ukraine => Michael McFaul and Robert Person 3 Strategic Fanaticism: Vladimir Putin and Ukraine => Lawrence Freedman 4 The Failure to Deter: US Policy toward Ukraine and Russia from the End of the Cold War until February 24, 2022 => Michael Kimmage 5 How the War Will End => Anne Applebaum Part ii: The Conflict 6 The Russia-Ukraine War: Military Operations and Battlefield Dynamics => Michael Kofman 7 Russian Military Resilience and Adaptation: Implications for the War in Ukraine and Beyond => Dara Massicot 8 Planning for the Worst: The Russia-Ukraine “Tiger Team” => Alexander Bick 9 US Strategy in Ukraine => Kori Schake 10 Nuclear Lessons and Dilemmas from the War in Ukraine => Francis J. Gavin 11 Fallacies of Strategic Thinking in the Ukraine War => Thomas G. Mahnken and Joshua Baker Part iii: Global Dimensions and Implications 12 The Ukraine War and Global Cleavages => Ashley J. Tellis 13 Putin’s Point of No Return => Andrea Kendall-Taylor 14 Accelerating Profound Changes Unseen in a Century: Chinese Assessments of and Responses to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine => Bonny Lin and Brian Hart 15 The European Union as a War Project: Five Pathways toward a Geopolitical Europe => Mark Leonard 16 Lose-Lose: The Economic Sanctions of the Russo-Ukrainian War => Daniel W. Drezner 17 America’s Global Role in the Shadow of the Ukraine Conflict => Peter D. Feaver and William Inbode It's 300-odd pages long in total, but each chapter is it's own essay which should make it a little less daunting. Some distinguished names have contributed; Laurance Freedman, Anne Applebaum, Dara Massicot, Kofman. I've only read the first few chapters but so far, so good.

Not sure if this has been posted already, but I found this an interesting read: The Attritional Art of War: Lessons from the Russian War on Ukraine | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org) Here's the co-pilot summary of what is covered in the article

One of the speakers posits that ISIL-K did this now because they have now regrouped in Afghanistan, basically why now? because now they have the strength, whereas previously they didn't. (The link is the correct position where the ex CIA operative is talking about it).

This article may explain an increase in Russian ISR: Russian Shahed-136 With Camera, Cellular Modem Could Be A Big Problem For Ukraine (twz.com) Co-pilot summary

Yep, I kind of equated it to a private members bill in the UK. More a way of highlighting something than actually getting a bill through. Not exactly the same but hopefully you get my gist. The problem, I'm guessing, is that even though it expresses ire with the current speaker there is not a lot that can change given the divisions the ousting of the previous speaker exposed. Well, on top of the other problems like linking it to the border, Gaza etc. This isn't going to happen, is it?

Yes, after reading the article @billbindc posted I came to the conclusion that there are an awful lot of moving parts to this, probably too many. Too many other distractions/issues/platforms. This backs this up. Sadly, democracy is a messy business. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Am I right in thinking that an normal majority (i.e. not 2/3rds) is needed for a discharge petition and all that a discharge petition means is that the Bill goes before congress? And then it needs another normal majority to be passed? Also does the Senate need to vote on it again? Just trying to get my head around what the Speaker can do to put the kibosh on it.

According to The Guardian/Reuters it's from cost savings in some contracts. White House announces $300m stopgap military aid package for Ukraine | US military | The Guardian

This article from H I Sutton is about two ships that had previously carried S300s back from Syria turning back from entering the Black Sea to go the long way round via the Baltic. Although not to do with grain exports per se, it does indicate Russian reluctance to carry presumably sensitive stuff through the Black Sea for fear of Ukrainian USV attack. Vital Russian Supply Lines In Black Sea Cut By Ukrainian Drones - Naval News

General Zaluzhnyi's sabbatical was short lived. Got himself a nice easy gig Valerii Zaluzhnyi: Ukraine appoints ex-army chief as UK ambassador - BBC News

In my limited understanding, the terrain on the right bank (Kherson city bank) has a higher elevation than the left bank which, I think, results in an advantage for the Ukrainian arty firing from there (on top of the logistical reasons outlined by Steve).

Fellow forum readers, you only have one life (probably). Do not waste any of it reading this absolute bollocks.. I will summarise: Premises: A minister went to HMS Clyde on a super secret mission, taking a reporter with him! The UK has a submarine called HMS Ambush that the minister visited The submarine had a tarp on it The UK has trained underwater bomb disposal divers Liz Truss said something Conclusion: The UK blew up Nord Stream.

https://bsky.app/profile/noelreports.bsky.social/post/3klmt52fyau2i Apparently, the Czechs have persuaded various countries to sell 155 shells. Someone just needs to pony up the money The President of the Czech Republic says that he has found 800 thousand shells for delivery to Ukraine | European Pravda (eurointegration.com.ua) According to Pavel, the Czech Republic has found artillery ammunition for Ukraine - Seznam Zprávy (seznamzpravy.cz)

UK was just about broke by mid '41. Forecasting at the time was that we would be broke sometime around Autumn '41. We ordered massive amounts of military equipment from the US, on top of the usual imports like oil, food etc, and then took on the French orders as well all prior to lend-lease. Lend-lease itself came in, from memory , March 41. The debt that was owed, and paid back, was from early war, prior to lend-lease starting. A big war is just about the most expensive endeavour a country can undertake.

Timothy Snyder described Stalin's Soviet Union in Bloodlands like this It struck me at the time of reading that described Putin's Russia just as well as Stalin's Soviet Union

Article can be found here => The F-16 exceeded the expectations of Ukrainian pilots during the exercise. Interview with the pilot of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Phantom (holosameryky.com)

Democracy is wasted on some people. Anyway, thanks for the reply and apols for shooting down the US politics rabbit hole

What a mess. Thanks for explaining.

Quick, dumb, question from a non-American - what pressures does a Republican Member of Congress face if they represent a safe Republican district, where they are almost guaranteed to be re-elected. Is it because they may face a primary from another Republican and get de-selected as the Republican candidate? Or is it party management within Congress? (Not taking sides here, same question applies to Democrat members). Basically, why do they feel the need to listen to their populist base? In the UK, MPs are relatively rarely de-selected by their local constituency party other than when they've done something dodgy. The pressure to vote one way or the other mainly comes from party management within the House of Commons, by whipping, threats to careers, promises of jobs in Government etc.

Right click on the time at the top left of the post and choose copy link https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/feb/01/eu-leaders-gather-for-key-summit-in-bid-to-unblock-orban-veto-on-ukraine-aid-europe-live?page=with:block-65bb73188f08d26c7ae387f2#block-65bb73188f08d26c7ae387f2