23 thoughts on “Russia Thanks MTG, RoJo and Everybody Else Who Held Up the Foreign Military Assistance Bill

  1. pgl

    “Russian forces continued to make tactically significant advances north and northeast of Kharkiv City on May 13 and currently appear to be prioritizing the rapid establishment of a “buffer zone” along the international border over setting conditions for deeper penetrations into northern Kharkiv Oblast.”

    When Kelly Anne Conway brags about her brilliant campaign in 2016, truth be told she got a big assist from Putin. And Trump has rewarded Putin handsomely.

    Reply
  2. Steven Kopits

    It’s a bad scene. Of course, had the Price Cap been properly structured, Kyiv would have had much, if not all, of the funds needed.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      You and the ‘Price Cap’. I would have thought nothing could be as stupid as your Suppression BS. But yea – this trope of yours is indeed the dumbest rant of all time.

      Then again you are pathetic enough to cheer on collusion in the oil sector so HEY!

      Reply
    2. Moses Herzog

      I thought you wanted to bribe Putin by giving him Ukraine sovereign lands for pennies on the dollar?? Heck, I even bet Barkley Rosser’s “inside sources” in Russia would have told you that you were uuh, like, a genius, and stuff.

      Reply
    3. Ivan

      That is just an absurd statement. Moscow marjory would not have approved of weapons to Ukraine no matter how those caps had been “structured” – and the delayed EU weapon productions and delivery would also not have been influenced by those caps.

      Even more amazing than your ignorance is your arrogance. You are making statements as if you were an oracle with no need to anchoring them in facts or rational logic.

      Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Recall what Gen Patton said about “defending”.

    Defenders lack initiative.

    The Russians took a chance, initiated a tactical thrust which met light resistance and seems to be edging toward an operational endeavor.

    I doubt funds would have moved reserves north of Kharkov. Or delivered the needed reaction.

    Reply
    1. Moses Herzog

      There were some Ukraine offensive strikes into Russia, and gaining back of territory lost. But that was before Republicans abdicated their national security responsibilities to pacify an illiterate orange ape.

      America ran out on the Kurds, (better allies to America than Israel) and Arab translators, why start honoring promises to allies now?? /sarc

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        I suggest that “national security” is not found in the US constitution. The legislative is limited to the powers stated, not more.

        The touted $60 billion, which was debated, is likely wrong stuff, it is provided for what concept of operations? devised by whom?

        The problem last summer was not shells or $ per se, it was inadequate force for the “plan”.

        Ukraine is a “small shoe” filled by debaters inside the beltway.

        Reply
        1. Moses Herzog

          Menzie already has multiple commenters who provide bad examples for economics theory. I’m assuming he keeps you here to provide examples of very bad English as a second language.

          Reply
        2. Ivan

          “The problem last summer was not shells….”

          You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. We don’t need postulates from ignorant armchair generals. Just listen to front line reporters. More soldiers “force” doesn’t help when they don’t have enough ammo.

          All reporting from the front line (included Ukranian soldiers) complained that Russia had 5-10 times as many shells as they had. Those who paid attention were actually surprised that the front line commanders pointed to more shells as their number one priority. EU and Germany promised to help with that but have been behind their own targets.

          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            Artillery is the “queen of the battlefield” is so 19th century!

            The forces provided to Ukraine were utterly deficient in combined arms, integrated aerospace and ground forces! As well as engineering preparation of the battlespace.

            None of those deficiencies are corrected by the billions flowing to Ukraine and Ramstein AFB!

  4. Ivan

    The current attack in the north are not based on a strategic decision to try taking Kharkiv. They are simply trying to push Ukraine sufficiently far away from Belgorod that Ukraine cannot shell that city. In the same move they also get themselves close enough that they can shell part of Kharkiv.

    The big question is whether they by making these attacks now, have also piddled away the short opportunity for progress in offensives at other areas further south (while new weapons and ammunition are still on the way from US/Nato). Remember attacking takes about 5 times as many soldiers as defending. So they will divert a lot more Russian soldiers away from the south (30K) than they take Ukrainian forces away (6K).

    Reply
    1. Ulenspiegel

      ” Remember attacking takes about 5 times as many soldiers as defending.”

      That is nonsense, even the simple 3:1 rule lacks a data base to support it. Hint: Without stating the quality of the opposing forces, ratios are meaningless.
      If both sides are of the same quality you can expect around 80% probability of a victory of the attacker if he has a three larger force. If the quality is quite different (i.e. attacker is better), you can of course operate with lower ratios. There is a lot of hard data available for WW2 and later wars: The 3:1 rule and even more the 5:1 rule is BS in a serious discussion.

      The basic issue on both sides is that the armies are not able to conduct mobile warfare, neither at the tactical nor at the operational level, that is a leadership issue. And for me it means that the NATO support is lacking in the training department of officers.

      Reply
      1. Moses Herzog

        Oh yes, UlensRussky is here once again to throw cold water on NATO. Must be the guy who cleans Putin’s toilet seat wondering what he’s gonna do when Russia’s army tires of dying in droves for no reason under the sun. UlensRussky, you’re not Russian in-laws of the Rosser family are you?? Did she tell you these were “just exercises” in Vovchansk?? Let me guess—she “saw it on Russian state TV” so……..

        Reply
      2. Ivan

        The 3:1 rule is definitely not a hard rule that applies to every army against every army and it is subject to revisions that include troop and equipment quality on both sides, as well as local conditions and “opportunities. The basic fact is that it requires a lot more force to attack than defend. However, serious discussion doesn’t get hung up on the exact ratio for specific battlegrounds – that actually don’t get pinned down until the battle is over. Modern warfare has made it even more difficult to “overrun” enemy positions so whatever the number turns out to be it is likely higher than most people would predict.

        Reply
    2. Anonymous

      Operations have several layers of intent. Tactical, operational and strategic.

      You surmise the local operational benefits, There are more.

      There are reports that Ukraine armed forces are redeploying battalions drawn from brigades already engaged in the Donbas area. Stretching Ukraine reserves!

      Russian artillery will be in position to do to Kharkov what Donbas has endured since 2014.

      Reply
  5. James

    Anne Applebaum has a new essay on how autocrats in China, Russia, and other places around the world are now making common cause with MAGA Republicans to discredit liberalism and freedom – https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-atlantic-s-june-cover-story-anne-applebaum-on-how-democracy-is-losing-the-propaganda-war/ar-BB1lTH2k
    I think Speaker Johnson backed away from it a little after he got a high level intel briefing on Putin’s plans for NATO at White House. The Republicans know who among their members are getting funding from Putin’s kleptocrats.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    Immediate US weapon/ammunition delivery comes from “presidential drawdown authority” (PDA) for weapons and munitions stocked by the pentagon for wars in one of the major combatant commands, i.e. USCENTCOM covers the Middle East, EUCOM covers Europe.

    Here is news release on the recently passed $100B for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.

    https://titus.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3603

    “The Department of Defense will receive $13 billion to aid in the defense of Israel and to support our military personnel deployed to the region, including $4.4 billion to replenish U.S. stocks of equipment sent to Israel through Presidential drawdown authority (PDA), $2.4 billion for Central Command* operations and related activities, and $5.2 billion for Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Iron Beam defense systems.”

    The $5B for Iron Dome et. al. after 13 April. Most of the Israel aid replenishes stock from PDA withdrawals.

    On Ukraine:

    The Department of Defense will receive $13.78 billion to provide assistance, including training, equipment, weapons, logistics support, supplies and services, salaries and stipends, sustainment, and intelligence support to Ukraine’s military. It also allows the Secretary of Defense to accept contributions from partner nations in support of Ukraine. Additionally, DOD will receive $13.41 billion to replenish U.S. stocks of equipment sent to Ukraine through Presidential drawdown authority (PDA), $20.5 billion for U.S. Armed Forces mission support*, intelligence support, pay, equipment, and related activities, $8 million for the Inspector General, including the Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve and requires an Inspector General to provide a briefing to the Committees on activities.

    * $2.4B for Israel and $20.5B for Ukraine: indicated money appropriated for CENCTOM and EUCOM military activities to directly participate in Gaza and Ukraine.

    Reply
  7. Moses Herzog

    Just heard that neither of the two scheduled Presidential debates will include an in-person audience. Strange…… I’m hoping they’ll be able to turn the mics off if one of them tries to verbally bully and talk over the other candidate’s time. This shit of the back-and-forth between host and rowdy candidate is enough. Just turn the son-of-a-b*tch’s mic off.

    Reply
    1. Ivan

      The only way I would waste time tuning into any of those debates is if the moderator has complete control of the microphones, and each candidate is staring at a 10 second count down clock to exactly when their time is up (and their microphone is turned off). Technical blocking of all interruptions and running past your time.

      Reply
    2. Baffling

      Agreed. If you wont follow the rules gracefully, then enforce them. Works on a toddler to some degree.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *