How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Seminole]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

I stepped on a random peace of gravel on the way to the mail box a decade ago, rolled my ankle got banged up enough to ruin my week. People trip, it is part of life.

Osteoporosis is part of life for people over 80, that’s why falls by the elderly are often deadly, and not particularly analogous to falls among toddlers, or even the middle aged.

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Artkin said:

So please explain to me the title of this article?

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/congress-approved-113-billion-aid-ukraine-2022

Perhaps reread my previous post and also consider how much of the aid Congress would have approve without assiduous staff work, politicking and planning by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. You can like or not like Biden but to pretend he or his administration isn’t responsible for our so far quite successful Ukraine policy and aid is absurd. “The Emperor has no clothes and it really sucks that he’s kicking our ***” is what the Russians are saying. I don’t know about you, but I generally go in the opposite direction of whatever copium there are snorting.

[Beleg85]

Tonight's Kursk:

 

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, MSBoxer said:

I think our president is blessed to have a skilled staff and some great advisors, especially regarding Ukraine.  I personally think that his cognitive abilities have slipped over the last decade as seen in some of his off the cuff statements and the apparent need for him to be "handled" more than in the past.  

This is not political, just an observation of his behavior compared to in the past.
 

 

The thing you won’t hear much in the analysis of the Biden administration is how unlike previous administrations this one is on Russia. For starters, they figured out that Putin was going to invade Ukraine, decided that the US was going to support Kyiv and began relentlessly pushing European allies *in April* of 2021. Why different? It’s not just the level of pre-planning, it’s also that Biden uniquely among recent American presidents had absolutely zero misconceptions about VVP, the strategic understanding of what a fallen Ukraine would mean and what a policy guy I know calls “**** it” old man energy. He’s a 78 year old guy who isn’t trying to set up some post Presidential foundation or get rich or whatever. He is just doing Ukraine right with all the tools at his disposal. 

He’s certainly an older guy but if this is what old guys who trip on sandbags are like, I’ll take it.

[Artkin]

13 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Perhaps reread my previous post and also consider how much of the aid Congress would have approve without assiduous staff work, politicking and planning by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. You can like or not like Biden but to pretend he or his administration isn’t responsible for our so far quite successful Ukraine policy and aid is absurd. “The Emperor has no clothes and it really sucks that he’s kicking our ***” is what the Russians are saying. I don’t know about you, but I generally go in the opposite direction of whatever copium there are snorting.

Like I said I'm not a politics student but it's clear congress has to first approve the budget, as I quickly read it seems @kevinkin is correct. A budget is set and the president gets to sign some papers push stuff through AFTER congress approves it. Correct? 

So I don't really understand how biden "arranged the destruction". He's not a king, there are checks and balances between branches to get these sort of things done. He played a part, but he's definitely not purely responsible. 

Anyway back to what I was originally saying, Biden has been falling apart since before he was elected. He's not healthy, and not fit for the presidency for that very reason. There's too much left/right knobgobbling blinding people on these forums. Who cares that he "pantsed" the right? The budget wouldn't have collapsed despite whoever held the presidency. Also no real solution to this problem has been provided as far as I know. So again, who cares. Nothing's being fixed. Congratulations raising the debt ceiling AGAIN. Big win. 

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, Seminole said:

Osteoporosis is part of life for people over 80, that’s why falls by the elderly are often deadly, and not particularly analogous to falls among toddlers, or even the middle aged.

A few years ago a nurse friend of mine, at the time in her mid 40s, went to go to work down the same stairs she's used for 15+ years.  She stepped wrong, rolled her ankle, and now sets off metal detectors and can tell when it's about to rain.

And anybody who thinks physical agility is directly related to contributions to society, let me demonstrate how stupid a notion that is:

And no, that is not Photoshoppped.

Steve

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Utkin is just field commander, but since Wagner became active political tool of Kremlin, it operations need more and more money, so this PMC led one of Putin's minions with own business - Prigozhyn. He is owner of "Concord" company and some others, through which finances flow from Kremlin (FSB?) and from resources mining in Africa and Syria

Must be given credit to Kremlin policy in Africa, using PMC as "indirect methods" - they silently pushed off France from several countries of their orbite like Mali and CAR. Reportedly minin of gold in CAR gives to Prigozhyn 250 millions $ for year 

I would submit that Wagner has been an active political tool of the Kremlin since the beginning. Utkin was involved with Slavonic Corps which the Kremlin squashed bc it didn’t control it. When Utkin returned to Saint Petersburg, he was charged with setting it up by Putin and within a year or so Wagner was fighting in the Donbas. Prigozhin is the factotum Putin put in who is now trying to leverage it both to carry out his master’s need to balance out the MoD and secure his own position. Hence, of course, Bakhmut.

[Artkin]

Biden's health concerns had nothing to do with his physical agility. 

Him falling today isn't an indicator of anything other than he should watch his step. In other words - not a concern of mine. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Artkin

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Like I said I'm not a politics student but it's clear congress has to first approve the budget, as I quickly read it seems @kevinkin is correct. A budget is set and the president gets to sign some papers push stuff through AFTER congress approves it. Correct? 

So I don't really understand how biden "arranged the destruction". He's not a king, there are checks and balances between branches to get these sort of things done. He played a part, but he's definitely not purely responsible. 

Anyway back to what I was originally saying, Biden has been falling apart since before he was elected. He's not healthy, and not fit for the presidency for that very reason. There's too much left/right knobgobbling blinding people on these forums. Who cares that he "pantsed" the right? The budget wouldn't have collapsed despite whoever held the presidency. Also no real solution to this problem has been provided as far as I know. So again, who cares. Nothing's being fixed. Congratulations raising the debt ceiling AGAIN. Big win. 

The budget is created by a mix of Congressional priorities and Executive priorities that are negotiated over intensely before a final budget is arrive at. The bill is then approved by Congress and also signed by the President or it doesn’t come into force. He doesn’t “sign some papers” after Congress hands him a note. 

I’ll leave the rest because it is pretty clear where you are coming from and I doubt I’ll convince you of the reality of how things work.

[Battlefront.com]

26 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Like I said I'm not a politics student but it's clear congress has to first approve the budget, as I quickly read it seems @kevinkin is correct. A budget is set and the president gets to sign some papers push stuff through AFTER congress approves it. Correct? 

No, that is NOT correct.  He has extremely large latitude within the Congressional mandate.  Including the ability to do f'all  nothing to help Ukraine.  Congress would then have to agree to force the President to do something, which is unlikely to happen in this fractured political climate.  And even when Congress mandates the President do something, he can elect to not do it.  The previous President was sued a lot for not doing what he was supposed to do:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/state-attorneys-general-have-sued-trump-s-administration-138-times-n1247733

26 minutes ago, Artkin said:

So I don't really understand how biden "arranged the destruction". He's not a king, there are checks and balances between branches to get these sort of things done. He played a part, but he's definitely not purely responsible. 

Nobody said he is purely responsible.  What informed people (which you admit you are not one of) have said that his influence is critical.  The decision to release intelligence reports well ahead of Russia's invasion is probably the most significant thing any President has done in decades.  If the previous President had been in office there is no doubt this would not have happened.  In fact, based on historical examples Trump would likely have denied it and said the US intel services were lying.  He famously said this to Putin in person in Helsinki, so it is what it is.

26 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Anyway back to what I was originally saying, Biden has been falling apart since before he was elected. He's not healthy, and not fit for the presidency for that very reason. There's too much left/right knobgobbling blinding people on these forums. Who cares that he "pantsed" the right? The budget wouldn't have collapsed despite whoever held the presidency. Also no real solution to this problem has been provided as far as I know. So again, who cares. Nothing's being fixed. Congratulations raising the debt ceiling AGAIN. Big win. 

And a big win to you proving you know even less than you think you know, which you just admitted isn't much to start with.

Steve

[panzermartin]

It's funny because according to western media Putin has been dying since Feb 2022 but Biden looks in worse shape and is more at risk with his constant falls. 

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

The budget is created by a mix of Congressional priorities and Executive priorities that are negotiated over intensely before a final budget is arrive at. The bill is then approved by Congress and also signed by the President or it doesn’t come into force. He doesn’t “sign some papers” after Congress hands him a note. 

Yup, and there was the aforementioned responsibility of the President to select those who manage how the US government is run.  This is probably the most important responsibility of the President, or any executive leader in public or private sectors.  Objectively, this was a major weakness in the previous Admin.

The US's response to Russia has been exceptionally good from a pragmatic standpoint today as well as looking back through history.  This did not happen by random accident or some sort of autopilot.  It was directed by the President and carried out by the people he has surrounded himself with.  I am more pleased with Biden's leadership on Russia than any previous President going back to the end of the Cold War.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

15 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

It's funny because according to western media Putin has been dying since Feb 2022 but Biden looks in worse shape and is more at risk with his constant falls. 

 

Russia has a closed and controlled environment surrounding Putin, Biden does not.  Plus, we're not even sure when we see Putin that it really is Putin.

Let's also not forget that the US President that effectively won WW2 was in a wheelchair for most of that time.  I'm sure if he got up he would have tripped more than Biden.

Steve

[kevinkin]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And even when Congress mandates the President do something, he can elect to not do it.

The president can choose to violate a law(s) they actually signed into law. Or select pieces of legislation. Or laws in place before they took office. So what's the issue with this line item veto thing? It seems to be embedded in the process. By the time everything is litigated, POTUS is out of office. 

[panzermartin]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia has a closed and controlled environment surrounding Putin, Biden does not.  Plus, we're not even sure when we see Putin that it really is Putin.

Steve

Certainly there is a lot less mystery surrounding POTUS 

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

The president can choose to violate a law(s) they actually signed into law. Or select pieces of legislation. Or laws in place before they took office. So what's the issue with this line item veto thing? It seems to be embedded in the process. By the time everything is litigated, POTUS is out of office. 

Yup, which is why "running out the clock" has become a common term used to describe this behavior.  Which, from what I can tell, seems to be becoming rather commonplace.  Congress does it all the time as well.

Steve

[Artkin]

13 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The budget is created by a mix of Congressional priorities and Executive priorities that are negotiated over intensely before a final budget is arrive at. The bill is then approved by Congress and also signed by the President or it doesn’t come into force. He doesn’t “sign some papers” after Congress hands him a note. 

I’ll leave the rest because it is pretty clear where you are coming from and I doubt I’ll convince you of the reality of how things work.

Yes I know the president has to also approve of what congress decides. Checks and balances. Congress doesn't have supreme authority over the executive branch, and the opposite is just as true. 

By "signing some papers" I was referring to approving sending equipment and financial aid to ukraine. The budget is decided and the president sends what he wants within what is legal. 

Clear where I'm coming from? What's that supposed to mean? Are you insisting I consider myself a part of the "right" and I feel the need to defend it? If so - Completely wrong. 

13 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, that is NOT correct.  He has extremely large latitude within the Congressional mandate.  Including the ability to do f'all  nothing to help Ukraine.  Congress would then have to agree to force the President to do something, which is unlikely to happen in this fractured political climate.  And even when Congress mandates the President do something, he can elect to not do it.  The previous President was sued a lot for not doing what he was supposed to do:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/state-attorneys-general-have-sued-trump-s-administration-138-times-n1247733

Nobody said he is purely responsible.  What informed people (which you admit you are not one of) have said that his influence was critical.  The decision to release intelligence reports well ahead of Russia's invasion is probably the most significant thing any President has done in decades.  If the previous President had been in office there is no doubt this would not have happened.  In fact, based on historical examples Trump would likely have denied it and said the US intel services were lying.  He famously said this to Putin in person in Helsinki, so it is what it is.

And a big win to you proving you know even less than you think you know, which you just admitted isn't much to start with.

Steve

"Within the congressional mandate"

The conversation began with me saying that the president isnt solely responsible for the massive aid given to Ukraine. Congress plays a part, and the pentagon influences everyone. It's not like Biden is the grand mastermind behind what's happening today. Our Joint chiefs of staff wanted this to happen whether Biden was in office or not. It's a win for the US on the cheap at the expense of Ukrainian blood. 

Congress is currently bipartisanly supporting sending aid packages. Why do you think they would be too fractured with any other president in office? It's insignificant. Unless the president was gaining benefits from avoiding a conflict, which is borderline treason given Russia's historically hyper aggressive stance toward it's neighbors and us. 

We had boots on the ground and investment in Ukraine long before Trump took office. The Ukraine thing has absolutely nothing to do with him in the beginning or where we're at now so I don't know why you think it's relevant to bring him up in discussion. 

Biden acknowledging an impending invasion was a good thing, nobody's denying this. There you go, something he did all by himself. Aid to Ukraine wasn't done by Biden himself. 

My point with all of this is to give credit where it's due. The Biden administration is virgin in comparison with US influence and interest in Ukraine. The ball has been rolling for a while. Trainers and material aid to Ukraine since 2014/2015 is BEFORE TRUMP AND BEFORE BIDEN. 

I'm astonished how one person has traumatized logic out of people. Who cares about Trump in this situation. He's irrelevant. 

The only point I've been arguing is that congress and the pentagon (Military industrial complex) are making the calls. Biden has a small part in this, and is heavily influenced by both of these parties. He's not a Russia destroying warhawk that has ultimate power over the american people. 

[billbindc]

5 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Yes I know the president has to also approve of what congress decides. Checks and balances. Congress doesn't have supreme authority over the executive branch, and the opposite is just as true. 

By "signing some papers" I was referring to approving sending equipment and financial aid to ukraine. The budget is decided and the president sends what he wants within what is legal. 

Clear where I'm coming from? What's that supposed to mean? Are you insisting I consider myself a part of the "right" and I feel the need to defend it? If so - Completely wrong. 

"Within the congressional mandate"

The conversation began with me saying that the president isnt solely responsible for the massive aid given to Ukraine. Congress plays a part, and the pentagon influences everyone. It's not like Biden is the grand mastermind behind what's happening today. Our Joint chiefs of staff wanted this to happen whether Biden was in office or not. It's a win for the US on the cheap at the expense of Ukrainian blood. 

Congress is currently bipartisanly supporting sending aid packages. Why do you think they would be too fractured with any other president in office? It's insignificant. Unless the president was gaining benefits from avoiding a conflict, which is borderline treason given Russia's historically hyper aggressive stance toward it's neighbors and us. 

We had boots on the ground and investment in Ukraine long before Trump took office. The Ukraine thing has absolutely nothing to do with him in the beginning or where we're at now so I don't know why you think it's relevant to bring him up in discussion. 

Biden acknowledging an impending invasion was a good thing, nobody's denying this. There you go, something he did all by himself. Aid to Ukraine wasn't done by Biden himself. 

My point with all of this is to give credit where it's due. The Biden administration is virgin in comparison with US influence and interest in Ukraine. The ball has been rolling for a while. Trainers and material aid to Ukraine since 2014/2015 is BEFORE TRUMP AND BEFORE BIDEN. 

I'm astonished how one person has traumatized logic out of people. Who cares about Trump in this situation. He's irrelevant. 

The only point I've been arguing is that congress and the pentagon (Military industrial complex) are making the calls. Biden has a small part in this, and is heavily influenced by both of these parties. He's not a Russia destroying warhawk that has ultimate power over the american people. 

Sure, Trump's completely irrelevant to the conversation. Nothing to see there. Move along.

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/timeline-how-trump-withheld-ukraine-aid/

[kevinkin]

24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

"running out the clock"

That sets up an ongoing situation where POTUS is non-dictatorial sort of authoritarian where that authority of the office is determined and passed on by elections. Don't get me wrong, I honor the process. The troubles start when the president's employees act in a partisan fashion by the thousands and they mostly lean in one direction using the law and "running out the clock" as cover. Hey we all do it. I will break more laws in my 80's then I ever did in my teens. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by kevinkin

[Artkin]

13 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Sure, Trump's completely irrelevant to the conversation. Nothing to see there. Move along.

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/timeline-how-trump-withheld-ukraine-aid/

In regards to Biden's responsibility for Ukrainian aid. Yes, irrelevant. The conversation WAS about Congress' influence in providing aid. 

I'll give the article a read but I don't see how that's relevant. Trump's been out of office for what? 2 years now? 

None of this is a swing at Biden nor Trump. It's solely about Biden not being solely responsible for Ukrainian aid.

 

As I've proven already:

Congress is responsible as well. So give credit where it's due. No single person is responsible for our achievement in Ukrainian support. Sorry to put it so bluntly Ukrainians, it's not like American common folk wanted war, it just benefits our foreign policy after all the years of Soviet tyranny. 

[Harmon Rabb]

Never knew the Polish name for Kaliningrad was Królewiec. Fun to learn something new.

 

[Artkin]

Also doesn't congress (Both houses) have the ability to revote and overturn the president's veto? Why didn't they do it for the aid Trump denied? That's a loss for the American public. If so I still believe that they would have supported Ukrainian aid packages when war officially broke out on February 24th. But that's speculation. 

If they didn't provide aid after February 24th it would be treasonous to the American public. We have spent trillions on defense to deter Russia/Soviet Union specifically since 1945. Now we're beating them on the cheap. 

[dan/california]

9 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Also doesn't congress (Both houses) have the ability to revote and overturn the president's veto? Why didn't they do it for the aid Trump denied? That's a loss for the American public. If so I still believe that they would have supported Ukrainian aid packages when war officially broke out on February 24th. But that's speculation. 

If they didn't provide aid after February 24th it would be treasonous to the American public. We have spent trillions on defense to deter Russia/Soviet Union specifically since 1945. Now we're beating them on the cheap. 

Takes a two thirds vote to override a veto, it is virtually inconceivable in anything resembling the current congress on anything resembling a major issue.

[kevinkin]

8 minutes ago, Artkin said:

(Both houses) have the ability to revote and overturn the president's veto?

The president vetos laws passed by congress. Once any law is in place, the president would have to be sued for not enforcing it. So in your scenario, a new law would have to be passed that pleases the president. By that time emergency situation could get out of hand. It might make an interesting paper comparing how past presidents would have responded to the 2022 RA invasion. But the end, it's just hypothetical. However, the would be writer would have a lot of material to use as references. 

[akd]

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Let's also not forget that the US President that effectively won WW2 was in a wheelchair for most of that time. 

Yeah, but then the President died and we lost the war.

Edited June 1, 2023 by akd