Jump to content

$200 mil in US weapons to ukraine


Recommended Posts

$200 million to ukraine approved by US house committee

its on news sites now

so can ukraine forces get upgraded with javs ;)

or do you need a list of what they get before you update

interesting to see what they actually get

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$200 million to ukraine approved by US house committee

its on news sites now

so can ukraine forces get upgraded with javs ;)

or do you need a list of what they get before you update

interesting to see what they actually get

cheers

 

It would help if you actually knew how the American legislative process works before jumping to the conclusion that Ukraine should now have Javelins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would help if you actually knew how the American legislative process works before jumping to the conclusion that Ukraine should now have Javelins.

Wait a second. In order to understand how something works, it is kinda important to know it actually works in the first place :D

Seriously, there's nothing interesting new here. The subcommittee of the House of Reps has passed draft legislation for a wide range of defense spending programs, of which is the (relatively) tiny $200m for arms/training to Ukraine. It has not been approved by the rest of the House, it has not been approved by the Senate at all, it has not been "reconciled", and therefore there is absolutely nothing for Obama to sign or reject because it's not on his desk for either action. That's exactly where this has been since late last year.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second. In order to understand how something works, it is kinda important to know it actually works in the first place :D

Seriously, there's nothing interesting new here. The subcommittee of the House of Reps has passed draft legislation for a wide range of defense spending programs, of which is the (relatively) tiny $200m for arms/training to Ukraine. It has not been approved by the rest of the House, it has not been approved by the Senate at all, it has not been "reconciled", and therefore there is absolutely nothing for Obama to sign or reject because it's not on his desk for either action. That's exactly where this has been since late last year.

Steve

 

 

Steve is absolutely correct in describing the factual/procedural side of this matter. From that perspective, it is definitely a nonstory. However, when you consider the impact of this act and it's coverage in the media field, there are (in my humble view) several hidden messages that are sent here:

 

1. US is not forgetting about Ukraine and will continue to support its military - that's a message for Russians

2. US support for the Ukrainian military will remain limited and scalable (as the $200 mil is not nearly enough to push ZSU to a new qualitative level) - that's the message for the Ukrainians

3. The conflict in Donbas will continue to burn and possibly get worse with more global implications; unless the "Normandy Format" negotiations succeed in resolving (not very likely) or "freezing” it (very likely) for the near future - that's the message for Europeans (mainly France and Germany)

Edited by DreDay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure, that is true. But that's really not news either, nor is it the only message being sent recently.

Steve

 

100%. My only point was, that there is some meanig behind such actions and their coverage, regardless of their actual procedural status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second. In order to understand how something works, it is kinda important to know it actually works in the first place :D

Seriously, there's nothing interesting new here. The subcommittee of the House of Reps has passed draft legislation for a wide range of defense spending programs, of which is the (relatively) tiny $200m for arms/training to Ukraine. It has not been approved by the rest of the House, it has not been approved by the Senate at all, it has not been "reconciled", and therefore there is absolutely nothing for Obama to sign or reject because it's not on his desk for either action. That's exactly where this has been since late last year.

Steve

 

Exactly :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is kinda telling that when I did a Google search on this earlier today the only article that showed up was from Russia Today. The reason is that in the West this isn't news and it is not important. Yet, anyway. But it's being spun as something far more meaningful in the RT article. It stated it was a continuation of the US' "anti-Russian policy".

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is kinda telling that when I did a Google search on this earlier today the only article that showed up was from Russia Today. The reason is that in the West this isn't news and it is not important. Yet, anyway. But it's being spun as something far more meaningful in the RT article. It stated it was a continuation of the US' "anti-Russian policy".

Steve

 

To be fair, this was reported by quite a few news sources in US (Washington Post), Ukraine (Kiev Post), and Russia (RT/Sputnik) amongst others. Still it's far from being headline news for the reasons that you have outlined above; but (again in my humble opinion) it is sufficient to send the message to those parties that it is meant for...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, for sure I found it in other news sources. But when I Googled the info on the day this thread popped up, the only relevant article that appeared in Google's "news" subsection was the RT article. The others were hits on stuff from Dec-Feb when more meaningful actions were taking place. Since Google puts those articles in front of me based on various formulas weighted by popularity and presumed relevance, I did find it interesting that the RT article was the only one that appeared there. A broader search, of course, turned up references to it.

The RT article, of course, did make it out to be more important in fact than it really is. Which, as you say, means that Russia understands that it is a message and is acting upon it as such.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...