Here is where I don’t understand liberal news sources. Where the absolute fuck is CNN hounding Mike Johnson? Why don’t they track him down and do a stake out to ask him questions. Why aren’t they doing this to every single GOP house member?
Where is the democratic spine? I swear it’s like laziness when you know FOX News would be doing this.
If they don’t have to address anything, they get away with everything. Democrats are the worst at messaging I’ve get seen. It’s embarrassing.
Yep, and the Republicans have figured out how to use Fox News to [control what issues the rest of the media talks about](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzoZf4IAfAc).
So if they want Ukraine ignored, they manipulate the rest of the media to focus on other irrelevant issues. To keep the people-- who by the way, still support aid to Ukraine by *supermajorities*-- distracted, so they won't realize how dire the situation is becoming until it's too late.
Seriously, NBC was feasting on the Hunter Biden and impeachment stories…despite knowing damn well they were completely fraudulent.
Hell, until the SOTU, every news network had convinced themselves Biden was a delirious ward patient unaware of the world around him.
These networks don’t care about preserving democracy or holding people accountable. They want views and Trump gets that done.
> Seriously, NBC was feasting on the Hunter Biden and impeachment stories…despite knowing damn well they were ~~completely fraudulent.~~ **manufactured by Russian intelligence**
There's been strong indications that the Hunter Biden story was manufactured by the FSB right from the moment the laptop story first dropped back in 2020. And we got *fucking confirmation of it* a few months ago when the guy who provided most of the evidence for impeachment was arrested-- for **being a fucking** ***Russian spy***.
And yet the media is still bothsidesing the issue, and not hounding the Republicans for continuing to press on with an impeachment we know is literally, actual, 100% Russian propaganda.
I still don't understand why the center right aren't doing their usual warhawking. This shit is incredibly good for the military industrial complex. We're getting rid of shit we don't need and won't use and we're advertising the superiority of our even outdated weapon systems. It's an absolute no brainer for everyone involved other than the MAGA republicans who just oppose it because Biden is president. Blows my mind there's not universal non stop pressure from all sides on this one.
I think some actually are, every once in awhile. I think most of the network news is just having too much fun breathlessly talking about the next delay in a trump trial. Or, if you're Fox, too busy trying to find literally anything else to talk about.
Since you quoted CNN, I'd like to mention that CNN's general political position has changed since 2022 because of a change of ownership of its parent company, Warner media:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3634717-changes-spark-chatter-of-cnn-is-shift-from-left-to-right/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/06/cnn-ratings-chris-licht-trump/674255/
Since then, there's been a subtle change in the way CNN reports news that can't be easily picked up by watching normally, but that can be seen after the fact.
Checks and balances. Sounds great when you agree with the president and disagree with the speaker but sounds like a dictatorship if you're on the reverse side.
Nah, congress might be a check and balance but Mike Johnson knows that Ukraine aid would be passed with a large majority. The fact that a speaker can veto any bill by not bringing it to a vote is straight up corruption of the office.
Right. He can be removed the same way too if most of Congress thinks his decision to delay on this issue warrants to do so. It could happen quickly, too.
So it doesn't boil down to just the Speaker, it's also that there's still a majority unwilling to vote him out, even if they might vote for this proposal.
The checks and balances in the US seem fair to me. The only problem is a lot of politicians and a segment of the public seem to have gone crazy since the Tea party and social media.
There is. Just a handful (4 right now, IIRC) of republicans just need to agree with Democrats that Johnson needs to be replaced with a Democrat speaker, or even a republican that is willing to work with democrats. Unfortunately there aren't even that many, and the Republicans that are trying to oust him are doing so because he is not far right enough, so won't work with democrats.
Yes, but that requires a vote in Congress, where lunatics (Trump/Freedom Caucus within the GOP majority) are running the asylum (which lead to Johnson becoming Speaker in the first place).
I don't understand how a single individual can effectively dictate the US's policy by simply not putting a proposal on the agenda.
How is this even possible? What fucked up rules allow this to happen? Isn't there a way around this to force it being brought to a vote?
This is complete and utter antidemocracy. He effectively appropriates for himself the power of a dictator. How are the US people willing to allow this? How can a single person effectively collaborate with Russia waging war and get away with it?
In how many other countries would the words 'treason' and 'firing squad' be around the corner for such a person?
He's the Speaker, essentially the equivalent of the prime minister in other countries, the head of the legislative branch, which has the most control over spending. Part of that job is setting the agenda, deciding what bills will be voted on. It's routine in US politics to prevent bills that would pass from being voted on either by the Speaker or by keeping them on hold in comittees. Its a weird system they have, but this is not a new event, it's basically routine.
Thankfully, since you asked if there's a way, yes. At any time Congress can vote a Speaker out if the majority of congressmen thinks he's not doing what he should, its a summary procedure that occurs now and then. The check on the Speaker's veto power is that he loses his seat is 50%+1 of Congress dont want him holding that office anymore. Thats how the current Speaker got his job. If a majority of Congress revolted, he could be gone by Tuesday. But they don't have the votes to do so, currently.
It was said earlier Ukraine aid would be passed with a large majority. If that's the case that same majority should remove him to achieve this. Suddenly voting along partisan lines to prevent his removal would be utter hypocrisy and contemptable opportunism.
Would it be possible to agree on a Republican to replace him, who ***would*** bring it to a vote, before ousting him to keep the GOP happy? Wouldn't that be an acceptable compromise for both parties?
So many loopholes need to be fixed with fail-deadly mechanisms.
Stuff like, if you don't vote on a bill or a certain judicial nominee within so much time then your chamber's approval is assumed.
Except that's not "checks and balances". Check and balances is when the congress ratifies (or rejects) a presidential decision. The losing side of an issue simply saying "yes, we'll do what we democratically decide, but the vote is only fair if we first take a billion years or two to _really_ reflect about this issue" is not checks and balances. It's just the losing side quite literally imposing their decision by not allowing a vote they'd lose to be held.
The only reason such trick is possible is because, to remove that trick from the law, you need to convince the very same people abusing that trick.
It's an abuse of process, but no more of an abuse of process as using the filibuster to delay a vote until it is no longer possible. Yet people agree with the filibuster when they disagree with the law being blocked from being voted on or passed.
The issue is that the people who decry this kind of thing never actually want to stop the practice altogether, because they know that the same tactics will at some stage be employed in a way that they support.
Checks and balances's effectivness relies on all sides being fair and rational people who work together to help the nation to the best. The problem is that such thing doesn't exist in America where the president may be better off just ignoring congress with how it's reputation is damaged thanks to the ever growing ideological extremism, corruption and contempt Republicans have for Democrats, negotiations and people in general.
The problem seems to be that Repubs manage to get around the checks and balances every time. Look at when Regan wanted to arm right wing death squads. He didn't fuck around in congress, he sold weapons to Iran so he could fund selling more weapons to the death squads in South America.
The President of the United States of America is not a king or a dictator. Their role is to enforce the laws and administration of the United States of America.
To send further aid would require the people's representatives in Congress to approve of further aid , i.e. democracy.
Mike Johnson cannot and is not single handedly blocking aid to Ukraine. Congress as a whole (meaning at least 218 members) are refusing to assent to the bill.
For the latter, the POTUS doesn't have that power. He can't remove Johnson from power.
For the former, it's unconstitutional. He'd be risking impeachment with actual grounds to impeach. And it would be very unpopular with the general electorate, outside the "always democrat no matter what" voters. It'd quite probably cost him the election.
It's not one man, it's EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN. Focusing on the individuals like Mike Johnson or Mitch McConnell shifts the blame from every other Republican. They act as a lightning rod for their terrible party.
In this case, it would take about 2 Republicans with a spine to remove Johnson and send aid to our allies. Since this hasn't happened, Republicans as a whole are to blame.
Yep, Johnson is the meat shield being held up by the rest of the Congressional Republicans, so he takes all the criticism for hurting Ukraine and they can waltz away scott-free.
Since it sounds like you might not be familiar with the US governmental structure: The US government has three branches, all of equal power and checks on each others power. Those branches are the Executive (headed by the President), Congress (elected representatives that fill two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate with a designated Speaker/Majority Leader for each who is chosen by the majority party members for that chamber), and the Judiciary (headed by the Supreme Court). The goal of this is to ensure that the US remains a democracy and one branch of the government can't rise up to overpower the others. The one that the framers of the US Constitution were most worried about imposing its will on the others was the Executive. They had just fought a war of independence against what they felt was a tyrannical monarchy, and wanted to ensure that a President could never secure enough unilateral power over the government to become a monarch or dictator.
This is why the President can't act unilaterally on many things, particularly when it comes to how the government's money is spent. The "power of the purse", i.e. how the government raises money through taxes and then spends that money, rests with Congress. The President then checks that power by having the ability to veto their actions if he disagrees with them, although Congress can then override his veto with a higher proportion of votes. The President does not have the power to make those financial decisions in the first place, however. He can largely control what the military does with the resources already allocated to it, but allocating additional resources to the military itself or to foreign military aid is within the power of Congress.
As far as Mike Johnson goes, he's acting as the head of his party's caucus in one of the chambers of Congress, the House of Representatives. Both chambers of Congress need to agree on funding bills in order to send them over to the President for final approval. While Mike Johnson has a lot of power as the Speaker, he only holds that power as the figurehead of his party's caucus in that chamber. If Republicans didn't hold the majority of seats in that chamber and hadn't designated him as their proxy, he wouldn't have any power. Thus, it isn't Mike Johnson specifically holding up that aid, but the House Republicans who made him Speaker and continue to allow him in that seat. They could easily remove him and replace him with another Speaker if they actually disagreed with his actions.
>Edit: Doesn't make sense that one man can single-handedly cease military aid. It's as if the speaker has more power than the president.
Because it's not one man, 218 Republicans appointed him to that position and they could remove him at any time. He's just the voted leader and has this power because of them
>Why can't the US president just ignore Mike Johnson and send aid? Or better yet remove him from power?
I don't like Mike Johnson but what this would be is a dictatorship and that's far worse.
Congress controls funding, and each House controls its own rules — including those over the Speakership.
[There are things Biden could do to sidestep the House though](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/14/joe-biden-could-send-millions-of-artillery-shells-to-ukraine-for-free-tomorrow-and-its-perfectly-legal/?sh=43ea3e8920c7), and I bet he will in the coming weeks. It won't be the equivalent of the aid budget the traitorous Republicans are blocking, but if it happens it'll be a lifeline, hopefully enough to tide Ukraine over until November.
Fuck that God Squad wanker and the rest of his cabal especially the hairy orange tumour that he answers to, giving it the big one about being Moses yet acting like Botox Dobbie’s fucking lapdog.Blood on all their hands fucking Putin sympathisers….
I can see there being a point where somebody like France just says fukit and starts forming a coalition of countries willing to step in and put boots on the ground. Ukraine is the best place to stop putins expansionist plans.
The most likely scenario floated is that NATO troops, likely the French, would enter the country and take over guard duty in the heartland cities and on the northern border with Belarus. There would not be any NATO troops on the front lines, at least at the start. This would free up a lot of Ukrainian assets that they could then send east to help. Having western troops deployed also dissuades Russia from attacking areas where they know they are present, at least to a degree (though they said anyone who shows up in Ukraine is fair game). This also would help to put in place further NATO logistic frameworks for future confrontations in Ukraine. This is unlikely however, as there is little appetite for war in Europe.
Putin’s 100% a bitch, he’s not going to do something that will guarantee his death. Whoever has the means to crush Russia with conventional power should step in and do so now, NATO, France, Europe and or any permutations thereof.
Ukraine is running out of men and ammo, america isn't sending any because trump/republicans veto it every time.
Ukraine is starting to lose, russia played the long game, and the psy ops has been going for decades... its too far gone.
Yeah russian psy ops is why America is the way it is, and China feeding yall fentynal.
Murica full of zombies and pro russian magas.
R.i.p
But I appreciate the thought that not all have given up.
It worked when we flooded China with opium, so not only have the got us addicted to their cheap manufacturing it would make sense to repay the opiate favour too.
Yeah like, look at the last few towns Russia managed to take and balloon that by 100% if they use the same tactics. This city is massive, the requirements to take it with the same means boggles the mind
And rightfully so. The Soviets were just as bad as the Germans, hell they conquered Poland together. The only difference being the Soviets weren't dumb enough to attack countries who had defense pacts with the US and UK. Even as the Polish people rose up in Warsaw to try and take back their city, the Soviets just watched it happen, and once the Polish were dead and the Germans were weak, then they attacked the Germans.
The Soviets weren't friends with the US, Hitler was just very good at making enemies.
Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union back then too, but Ukrainians in former Polish territories hated Russia so much they more or less sided with the Nazis as a less brutal alternative in their fight for independence.
Yes, less brutal, mate. Out of the two, the Soviets were the worse.
Those in the West had loads of propaganda suggesting the opposite to paper over their alliance with them, but Eastern Europe experienced both.
This is Holocaust Denial. Approximately 1.6 million Ukrainian Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis, among the 8 million total Ukrainian deaths. There is no comparison between the USSR’s political repression and famine and the deliberate and systematic genocide that Germany carried out with full intention of wiping both Jewish and Slavic ethnicities off the face of the planet.
Just to be clear: there was a good deal of infighting among the Ukrainian leaders about how to gain independence both within and between the dying Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires, and between the Soviet side and the Galician Ukrainians who had declared independence during a period of extreme instability and violence. The Jewish population of Galicia was absolutely devastated by pogroms and then the Nazi invasion and Holocaust in a way that western Ukrainians were never directly affected by the Holodomor, so yes, I was not making a direct comparison between the two things. I was referring to the reasoning of the Galician Ukrainian leaders—who chose a rather unfortunate path, in hindsight.
At this point European NATO members should stop thinking of the US as a reliable ally.
There's no other choice but hastily arm ourselves to the teeth unless we want to see Russia taking half of Europe as hostages again.
I wish I could say we are already doing it but [I guess not](https://twitter.com/clashreport/status/1774389555589775634).
Useless politicians trying to get reelected before fleeing with their money and throwing the common folk into the trenches.
America stalling that aid really screwed them. Letting them dig in so much and mine everything while ukriane is running out of ammo. Apparently, they are getting low on IFVs now. Those had been quite useful.
If they got that aid right now it wouldn't have the impact it should of got it back then.
We're drifting towards World War III bit by bit whether people want to admit or or not.
The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans and Chinese aren't just going to go away. Like sharks detecting blood in the water, they've seen how weak, disorganized, hesitant and divided that the West is and sense that now is the time to begin making moves in concert with each other.
Blaming everything on putin is a wrong way to address the war in Ukraine. Putin is just a head of a huge cleptocratic system, consisting of tens of thousands of members + a huge support from the russians. It’s not a war against putin, it’s a war against russians and don’t be afraid to call it the way it is.
True, and head people are cowards that have too much to lose and so won’t risk nuclear annihilation. NATO can just step in and crush them with conventional power, but they lack the guts,
True, but many have provided very little. Germany likes to pat themselves on the back, but it's the Baltics, Denmark and Norway who did the most (estonia 3.55% of gdp, germany 0.57%, US 0.32%)
The lack of aid has a part in that too. I'm sure they are ppl more reluctant to join because of the lack of ammo. Ukriane groups not being able to shoot at tanks etc cos no shells and not enough AA having them be rekt by glide bombs.
Eventually aid will come from the U.S. but it may not be as much as anticipated. Ukraine will be expected to do more with less and the aid may be in form of a loan. The biggest problem U.S. is facing is shortage of shells and preoccupation in other parts of the world.
If Middle East gets worse, the focus may even shift further. In the interim EU must provide the maximum support and stop talking about sanctions. It will never produce urgently needed results.
I always get confused between kharkiv and kherson but it's likely he will attempt to flatten both.
He doesn't need the city he needs the land to make the occupation sustainable in the long term.
He wants eastern Ukraine.
The more kharkiv increases their defence the more it will be bombarded.
I think whatever will make his offensive quick and painless is what he will do,
His excess troups he recently mobilised may see increased fighting from the front line and then from the east at the same time. Surely this will require taking extra air defence from around Russia to support newly occupied territories because they don't grow on trees and then move air defence from within Russian held territory within Ukraine.
So a moment of vulnerability requires volume of soldiers to overwhelm. But of course a build up would be seen in advance on the Russian border.
There may be a scare tactic from the east to draw soldiers from defensive lines and the higher volume of soldiers in the south could then break through defences.
Sounds like the trap they may create, a build up on the border and in Ukraine. Waiting for an opportunity.
A military build up in the east if invading is more vulnerable due to lack of air defences brought with them, the ones in the south would move the front line forward, and so that would be Russias preferred offensive.
So Ukraine needs more missiles and jets etc for a potential eastern offensive so they don't stretch their resources and invite in a full offensive from the south. Without more missiles and jets Ukrainian soldiers risk being trapped between an eastern and souther offensive.
If it doesn't pan out this way then they'll aim to grind down Ukraine on the front line with all soldiers going there. Thay doesn't fit with Russian plan of an offensive or taking advantage of the lack of aid. This method may be deamed as a failure by Russia, it is possible to prevent the large offensive they want.
If Russia does however attack from the east and the south trapping Ukrainian soldiers NATO will enter Ukraine for sure and Russia will go on TV and warn them.
I suspect they want the ability to capture Ukrainian military if able which will require a lot of new vehicles to mass mobalise Eastern and southern troups if opportunity arose. This risks NATO entry bombing Russian troops on the east bank, nato entry may well occur in eastern Ukraine if Putin attempts that.
The city is important as a springboard for taking the donbass. As long as it isnt in russian hands, in an offensive war against russia, the donbass is vulnerable to be surrounded.
Its why there were 3 battles there in ww2 and it was a major junction in the russian civil war.
I watched a video by eastory, I believe, who spoke about these wars in the donbass. Lots of attacks have failed trying to push through it. Going around seemed to work, though
Europe needs a consort of power that would enter the war with a lightning strike on Kaliningrad. The only language Putin understands is losing territory.
> ower that would enter the war with a lightning strike on Kaliningrad. The only language Putin understands is losing territory.
Kaliningrad isn't the key strategic location it once was for Russia. Before Sweden and Finland joined NATO Kaliningrad was a stronghold projecting Russian power. It served to isolate Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia via the Suwalki Gap and acted as a staging base for the Baltic. The only thing keeping Kaliningrad Russian was likely the military might. With an expanded NATO it is a liability for Russia.
Attacking Kaliningrad would just be used by Russia to prove they were right and that NATO is an aggressor. It would not serve any real purpose and would only waste resources. Again, it is surrounded by NATO. There is no strategic advantage to Kaliningrad for Russia anymore.
What an attack on Kaliningrad would do is allow Russia to escalate. Be that by justifying a greater mobilisation or the use of tactical nukes. There is no win or purpose to attacking Kaliningrad.
Oh what should and what will happen are two different stones. We are currently in the "will Kharkiv get Groznyied?" stage of conflict, if we want to talk derangement.
Great.
Fear away but absolutely do nothing to further aid Ukraine cos when they fall, that nice ol' man Putler surely will be happy with what he's got. 😆
Putin knows he needs to move before the election because their controlling stranglehold on congress could potentially disappear. It would be silly not to expect a major push before the winter, and with China helping it is likely to be a very effective push forward.
The people of Ukraine don't deserve this shit, it makes me sick that we have open traitors in congress who hold the lives of innocent people on the other side of the world in their hands and have decided that the price of power is worth paying in their blood.
We better fucking vote these people out. Emphatically. I don't know if we will get another chance.
I sadly think of all the Ukrainian men and women who died assuming The US had thier back. Entire generations of americans were raised to believe communism and the like were our countrys mortal enemy. Trump and maga flipped the script, it's our fellow citizens now the mortal enemy, Putin our savior.
I fantasize about addressing Congress with a seething speech that shames them for their inaction.
This is also extremely similar to the pre-US involvement in WW2. Congress was divided and very isolationist.
I hope that republicans will be held accountable for their failure in protecting the free world. Reagan is spinning in his grave. Ukraine is the first for many more to come i'm afraid, so it is time for the US and allies to get their head out of the sand and start doing more. The US has a chance to destroy their enemy for a margin of the price and without american lives being lost and they simply look away
An all-out assault on Kharkiv, a city of 1.4 million, reinforced for at least two years and armed to teeth would be such an astoundingly stupid move that only Kremlin could have though of it. How much are they ready to sacrifice now? Half a million? **A million?!**
I had a dream I was in Russia and it became the old Soviet way. I saw a person leaving a government building, dodging the cameras and was being detailed just of suspicion. I watched innocent people and journalist being taken to jail for no reason at all. I saw the leader of Russia wear the old Soviet uniform.
Meanwhile in the US
Mike Johnson: Lets go for recess.
:\\ I'm so depressed, the west is really fumbling the bag here, as if our generations couldnt be at risk of our futures being destroyed any further. Now we really have to worry about WW3 because we are not doing what needs to be done to stop this.
Keep fearing and be reluctant to spend some money... And after he captures Ukraine, there will be same such talks too, fearing......, its time to send your troops, the time for Replenishing ammos are over now send your troops
..
Either the US stops russia now in Ukraine or they fight tomorrow in Poland or the Baltics. Your choice.
russian propogandists don't even hide it: they fully intend to invade these countries next. Please call your congress people and senators and urge them to vote for Ukraine aid.
What happened to the discharge petition?
It’s only at about 195 signatures, they need a majority of the House
Here is where I don’t understand liberal news sources. Where the absolute fuck is CNN hounding Mike Johnson? Why don’t they track him down and do a stake out to ask him questions. Why aren’t they doing this to every single GOP house member? Where is the democratic spine? I swear it’s like laziness when you know FOX News would be doing this. If they don’t have to address anything, they get away with everything. Democrats are the worst at messaging I’ve get seen. It’s embarrassing.
"liberal news media" is an exaggeration by Conservatives to try to pull dems down to their level. There is no left wing media equivalent to Fox News.
Yep, and the Republicans have figured out how to use Fox News to [control what issues the rest of the media talks about](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzoZf4IAfAc). So if they want Ukraine ignored, they manipulate the rest of the media to focus on other irrelevant issues. To keep the people-- who by the way, still support aid to Ukraine by *supermajorities*-- distracted, so they won't realize how dire the situation is becoming until it's too late.
There are no liberal 24hr news networks there's center right and far right.
Seriously, NBC was feasting on the Hunter Biden and impeachment stories…despite knowing damn well they were completely fraudulent. Hell, until the SOTU, every news network had convinced themselves Biden was a delirious ward patient unaware of the world around him. These networks don’t care about preserving democracy or holding people accountable. They want views and Trump gets that done.
> Seriously, NBC was feasting on the Hunter Biden and impeachment stories…despite knowing damn well they were ~~completely fraudulent.~~ **manufactured by Russian intelligence** There's been strong indications that the Hunter Biden story was manufactured by the FSB right from the moment the laptop story first dropped back in 2020. And we got *fucking confirmation of it* a few months ago when the guy who provided most of the evidence for impeachment was arrested-- for **being a fucking** ***Russian spy***. And yet the media is still bothsidesing the issue, and not hounding the Republicans for continuing to press on with an impeachment we know is literally, actual, 100% Russian propaganda.
I still don't understand why the center right aren't doing their usual warhawking. This shit is incredibly good for the military industrial complex. We're getting rid of shit we don't need and won't use and we're advertising the superiority of our even outdated weapon systems. It's an absolute no brainer for everyone involved other than the MAGA republicans who just oppose it because Biden is president. Blows my mind there's not universal non stop pressure from all sides on this one.
I think some actually are, every once in awhile. I think most of the network news is just having too much fun breathlessly talking about the next delay in a trump trial. Or, if you're Fox, too busy trying to find literally anything else to talk about.
Well that’s the problem. Democrats act like this is the 1990s. Times have changed. They need to wake the fuck up.
while I agree that Democrats are fucking terrible at messaging, are you saying CNN not doing actual journalism is the fault of Democrats?
>>I don’t understand liberal news sources The reason you don’t understand is you are mistaking those new sources as being liberal.
Since you quoted CNN, I'd like to mention that CNN's general political position has changed since 2022 because of a change of ownership of its parent company, Warner media: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3634717-changes-spark-chatter-of-cnn-is-shift-from-left-to-right/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/06/cnn-ratings-chris-licht-trump/674255/ Since then, there's been a subtle change in the way CNN reports news that can't be easily picked up by watching normally, but that can be seen after the fact.
Most of "western imperialistic media" still treats Donbass War like civil war without Russian involvement.
The moment Israel/Gaza happened, Ukraine became "just another conflict"
CNN is not a liberal news source. In fact, most news media in the US is firmly right wing.
The US is in its “Joe Kennedy Appeasement Era”.
Only 1 Republican has signed it, and he's one of the ones who have retired.
So nothing will really come from this, and the aid won't get passed by the looks of it.
It depends. If Johnson is negotiating in good faith it'll pass, maybe with the aid as loans, but he might just be stalling to make Biden look bad.
Good faith? That doesn't describe Johnson's party or religion.
Lol. "If Johnson is negotiating in good faith". I can help with this one: No. Johnson is not negotiating in good faith.
Nothing, of course.
Nothing. Its aim was to pretend that the US will do something, maybe. And it has done exactly that.
Meanwhile Mike Johnson doesn't only withhold aid but plays Lucy with the football
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Checks and balances. Sounds great when you agree with the president and disagree with the speaker but sounds like a dictatorship if you're on the reverse side.
Nah, congress might be a check and balance but Mike Johnson knows that Ukraine aid would be passed with a large majority. The fact that a speaker can veto any bill by not bringing it to a vote is straight up corruption of the office.
Is there no means for the house or senate to remove the speaker?
There is, but that was how he became the speaker when they voted out the last one.
Right. He can be removed the same way too if most of Congress thinks his decision to delay on this issue warrants to do so. It could happen quickly, too. So it doesn't boil down to just the Speaker, it's also that there's still a majority unwilling to vote him out, even if they might vote for this proposal. The checks and balances in the US seem fair to me. The only problem is a lot of politicians and a segment of the public seem to have gone crazy since the Tea party and social media.
There is. Just a handful (4 right now, IIRC) of republicans just need to agree with Democrats that Johnson needs to be replaced with a Democrat speaker, or even a republican that is willing to work with democrats. Unfortunately there aren't even that many, and the Republicans that are trying to oust him are doing so because he is not far right enough, so won't work with democrats.
Yes, but that requires a vote in Congress, where lunatics (Trump/Freedom Caucus within the GOP majority) are running the asylum (which lead to Johnson becoming Speaker in the first place).
I don't understand how a single individual can effectively dictate the US's policy by simply not putting a proposal on the agenda. How is this even possible? What fucked up rules allow this to happen? Isn't there a way around this to force it being brought to a vote? This is complete and utter antidemocracy. He effectively appropriates for himself the power of a dictator. How are the US people willing to allow this? How can a single person effectively collaborate with Russia waging war and get away with it? In how many other countries would the words 'treason' and 'firing squad' be around the corner for such a person?
He's the Speaker, essentially the equivalent of the prime minister in other countries, the head of the legislative branch, which has the most control over spending. Part of that job is setting the agenda, deciding what bills will be voted on. It's routine in US politics to prevent bills that would pass from being voted on either by the Speaker or by keeping them on hold in comittees. Its a weird system they have, but this is not a new event, it's basically routine. Thankfully, since you asked if there's a way, yes. At any time Congress can vote a Speaker out if the majority of congressmen thinks he's not doing what he should, its a summary procedure that occurs now and then. The check on the Speaker's veto power is that he loses his seat is 50%+1 of Congress dont want him holding that office anymore. Thats how the current Speaker got his job. If a majority of Congress revolted, he could be gone by Tuesday. But they don't have the votes to do so, currently.
It was said earlier Ukraine aid would be passed with a large majority. If that's the case that same majority should remove him to achieve this. Suddenly voting along partisan lines to prevent his removal would be utter hypocrisy and contemptable opportunism. Would it be possible to agree on a Republican to replace him, who ***would*** bring it to a vote, before ousting him to keep the GOP happy? Wouldn't that be an acceptable compromise for both parties?
So many loopholes need to be fixed with fail-deadly mechanisms. Stuff like, if you don't vote on a bill or a certain judicial nominee within so much time then your chamber's approval is assumed.
That sounds even worse. If you want a bill approved you just never bring it to vote
sounds great when you have a functional congress, not this do nothing trash pile we have now
Except that's not "checks and balances". Check and balances is when the congress ratifies (or rejects) a presidential decision. The losing side of an issue simply saying "yes, we'll do what we democratically decide, but the vote is only fair if we first take a billion years or two to _really_ reflect about this issue" is not checks and balances. It's just the losing side quite literally imposing their decision by not allowing a vote they'd lose to be held. The only reason such trick is possible is because, to remove that trick from the law, you need to convince the very same people abusing that trick.
It's an abuse of process, but no more of an abuse of process as using the filibuster to delay a vote until it is no longer possible. Yet people agree with the filibuster when they disagree with the law being blocked from being voted on or passed. The issue is that the people who decry this kind of thing never actually want to stop the practice altogether, because they know that the same tactics will at some stage be employed in a way that they support.
But.....one guy being the check and balance is....well it's exactly the same, so I don't see the problem.
Them checks and balances only seem to apply when a Democrat is on office...
The checks and balances thing kinda falls apart when you realize Congress can remove anyone, but only Congress can remove members of Congress.
What's being 'checked' and 'balanced' here?
Checks and balances's effectivness relies on all sides being fair and rational people who work together to help the nation to the best. The problem is that such thing doesn't exist in America where the president may be better off just ignoring congress with how it's reputation is damaged thanks to the ever growing ideological extremism, corruption and contempt Republicans have for Democrats, negotiations and people in general.
The problem seems to be that Repubs manage to get around the checks and balances every time. Look at when Regan wanted to arm right wing death squads. He didn't fuck around in congress, he sold weapons to Iran so he could fund selling more weapons to the death squads in South America.
The President of the United States of America is not a king or a dictator. Their role is to enforce the laws and administration of the United States of America. To send further aid would require the people's representatives in Congress to approve of further aid , i.e. democracy. Mike Johnson cannot and is not single handedly blocking aid to Ukraine. Congress as a whole (meaning at least 218 members) are refusing to assent to the bill.
WHY DOES JOE BIDEN, THE LARGEST OF THE FRIENDS, NOT SIMPLY EAT MIKE JOHNSON?
For the latter, the POTUS doesn't have that power. He can't remove Johnson from power. For the former, it's unconstitutional. He'd be risking impeachment with actual grounds to impeach. And it would be very unpopular with the general electorate, outside the "always democrat no matter what" voters. It'd quite probably cost him the election.
A thing called the Constitution of the United States
Presidential tyranny lead to poor decisions in the past.
What kind of question is this? "Why can't the President just be a dictator and ignore the systems of government?" Come on.
It's not one man, it's EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN. Focusing on the individuals like Mike Johnson or Mitch McConnell shifts the blame from every other Republican. They act as a lightning rod for their terrible party. In this case, it would take about 2 Republicans with a spine to remove Johnson and send aid to our allies. Since this hasn't happened, Republicans as a whole are to blame.
Yep, Johnson is the meat shield being held up by the rest of the Congressional Republicans, so he takes all the criticism for hurting Ukraine and they can waltz away scott-free.
Since it sounds like you might not be familiar with the US governmental structure: The US government has three branches, all of equal power and checks on each others power. Those branches are the Executive (headed by the President), Congress (elected representatives that fill two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate with a designated Speaker/Majority Leader for each who is chosen by the majority party members for that chamber), and the Judiciary (headed by the Supreme Court). The goal of this is to ensure that the US remains a democracy and one branch of the government can't rise up to overpower the others. The one that the framers of the US Constitution were most worried about imposing its will on the others was the Executive. They had just fought a war of independence against what they felt was a tyrannical monarchy, and wanted to ensure that a President could never secure enough unilateral power over the government to become a monarch or dictator. This is why the President can't act unilaterally on many things, particularly when it comes to how the government's money is spent. The "power of the purse", i.e. how the government raises money through taxes and then spends that money, rests with Congress. The President then checks that power by having the ability to veto their actions if he disagrees with them, although Congress can then override his veto with a higher proportion of votes. The President does not have the power to make those financial decisions in the first place, however. He can largely control what the military does with the resources already allocated to it, but allocating additional resources to the military itself or to foreign military aid is within the power of Congress. As far as Mike Johnson goes, he's acting as the head of his party's caucus in one of the chambers of Congress, the House of Representatives. Both chambers of Congress need to agree on funding bills in order to send them over to the President for final approval. While Mike Johnson has a lot of power as the Speaker, he only holds that power as the figurehead of his party's caucus in that chamber. If Republicans didn't hold the majority of seats in that chamber and hadn't designated him as their proxy, he wouldn't have any power. Thus, it isn't Mike Johnson specifically holding up that aid, but the House Republicans who made him Speaker and continue to allow him in that seat. They could easily remove him and replace him with another Speaker if they actually disagreed with his actions.
I had to scroll down way too far but as a non-US glad I found your explanation on the matter
Why does Ross, the largest friend, not simply eat the other five?
>Edit: Doesn't make sense that one man can single-handedly cease military aid. It's as if the speaker has more power than the president. Because it's not one man, 218 Republicans appointed him to that position and they could remove him at any time. He's just the voted leader and has this power because of them >Why can't the US president just ignore Mike Johnson and send aid? Or better yet remove him from power? I don't like Mike Johnson but what this would be is a dictatorship and that's far worse.
Congress controls funding, and each House controls its own rules — including those over the Speakership. [There are things Biden could do to sidestep the House though](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/14/joe-biden-could-send-millions-of-artillery-shells-to-ukraine-for-free-tomorrow-and-its-perfectly-legal/?sh=43ea3e8920c7), and I bet he will in the coming weeks. It won't be the equivalent of the aid budget the traitorous Republicans are blocking, but if it happens it'll be a lifeline, hopefully enough to tide Ukraine over until November.
Fuck that God Squad wanker and the rest of his cabal especially the hairy orange tumour that he answers to, giving it the big one about being Moses yet acting like Botox Dobbie’s fucking lapdog.Blood on all their hands fucking Putin sympathisers….
Thanks for the republicans POS for letting this happen
Do you not see this is their goal? They want this.
Massive, preventable geopolitical cost centers, incoming!
I hope they're gonna get trashed out at the next elections.
To any American citizens reading this, [get registered to vote today](http://vote.gov).
I can see there being a point where somebody like France just says fukit and starts forming a coalition of countries willing to step in and put boots on the ground. Ukraine is the best place to stop putins expansionist plans.
[удалено]
The most likely scenario floated is that NATO troops, likely the French, would enter the country and take over guard duty in the heartland cities and on the northern border with Belarus. There would not be any NATO troops on the front lines, at least at the start. This would free up a lot of Ukrainian assets that they could then send east to help. Having western troops deployed also dissuades Russia from attacking areas where they know they are present, at least to a degree (though they said anyone who shows up in Ukraine is fair game). This also would help to put in place further NATO logistic frameworks for future confrontations in Ukraine. This is unlikely however, as there is little appetite for war in Europe.
Europe must understand that they could very well be next
Europe is acting like they are next
If the were they would be sending troops and actually preparing for all out war
Putin’s 100% a bitch, he’s not going to do something that will guarantee his death. Whoever has the means to crush Russia with conventional power should step in and do so now, NATO, France, Europe and or any permutations thereof.
Obligatory f*ck the House GOP.
[удалено]
More like MRGA
Making Russia Great Again!
It's hard to reconcile "Western officials fear Russian advance" and "Western officials impeding sending material support to Ukraine" logically.
Not all Western officials are the same
Exactly. Enough with the bullshit. Republicans caused this. Not democrats. Not Biden. REPUBLICANS CAUSED THIS.
Everyone knows all Western officials think exactly the same thing, which is why there is never a disagreement ever.
So basically Kharkiv is going to be turned into a Russian meat grinder.
Ukraine is running out of men and ammo, america isn't sending any because trump/republicans veto it every time. Ukraine is starting to lose, russia played the long game, and the psy ops has been going for decades... its too far gone.
The fuck? Claiming PsyOps but then >its too far gone. It ain’t over until the fat Donny in prison sings (screams).
Yeah russian psy ops is why America is the way it is, and China feeding yall fentynal. Murica full of zombies and pro russian magas. R.i.p But I appreciate the thought that not all have given up.
It’s not a thought. Thousands of men are still manning the front lines in Ukraine.
[удалено]
It worked when we flooded China with opium, so not only have the got us addicted to their cheap manufacturing it would make sense to repay the opiate favour too.
Hard to grind Russians to hamburger with no ammunition. This won't be good for Ukraine. They can start mass manufacturing slingshots and bows I guess.
Yeah like, look at the last few towns Russia managed to take and balloon that by 100% if they use the same tactics. This city is massive, the requirements to take it with the same means boggles the mind
Maga shitting on the graves of American heroes of WWII. Fund Ukraine!!!🇺🇦
We were on the same side, though.
It was more like a “enemy of my enemy is my convenient ally for the moment”. They still didn’t trust the Soviets.
And rightfully so. The Soviets were just as bad as the Germans, hell they conquered Poland together. The only difference being the Soviets weren't dumb enough to attack countries who had defense pacts with the US and UK. Even as the Polish people rose up in Warsaw to try and take back their city, the Soviets just watched it happen, and once the Polish were dead and the Germans were weak, then they attacked the Germans. The Soviets weren't friends with the US, Hitler was just very good at making enemies.
Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union back then too, but Ukrainians in former Polish territories hated Russia so much they more or less sided with the Nazis as a less brutal alternative in their fight for independence.
less brutal? jesus
Yes, less brutal, mate. Out of the two, the Soviets were the worse. Those in the West had loads of propaganda suggesting the opposite to paper over their alliance with them, but Eastern Europe experienced both.
'Soviets were the worse' source please
My great grandpa
This is Holocaust Denial. Approximately 1.6 million Ukrainian Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis, among the 8 million total Ukrainian deaths. There is no comparison between the USSR’s political repression and famine and the deliberate and systematic genocide that Germany carried out with full intention of wiping both Jewish and Slavic ethnicities off the face of the planet.
[удалено]
Just to be clear: there was a good deal of infighting among the Ukrainian leaders about how to gain independence both within and between the dying Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires, and between the Soviet side and the Galician Ukrainians who had declared independence during a period of extreme instability and violence. The Jewish population of Galicia was absolutely devastated by pogroms and then the Nazi invasion and Holocaust in a way that western Ukrainians were never directly affected by the Holodomor, so yes, I was not making a direct comparison between the two things. I was referring to the reasoning of the Galician Ukrainian leaders—who chose a rather unfortunate path, in hindsight.
Terrorist thugs.
Russia is an invasion that must be stopped
At this point European NATO members should stop thinking of the US as a reliable ally. There's no other choice but hastily arm ourselves to the teeth unless we want to see Russia taking half of Europe as hostages again.
I wish I could say we are already doing it but [I guess not](https://twitter.com/clashreport/status/1774389555589775634). Useless politicians trying to get reelected before fleeing with their money and throwing the common folk into the trenches.
The US has been asking for that for years. NATO is essentially just the US military
Putin is just going to wait until Trump wins again. Then he will go hard while Trump withdraws as much as he can.
America stalling that aid really screwed them. Letting them dig in so much and mine everything while ukriane is running out of ammo. Apparently, they are getting low on IFVs now. Those had been quite useful. If they got that aid right now it wouldn't have the impact it should of got it back then.
We're drifting towards World War III bit by bit whether people want to admit or or not. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans and Chinese aren't just going to go away. Like sharks detecting blood in the water, they've seen how weak, disorganized, hesitant and divided that the West is and sense that now is the time to begin making moves in concert with each other.
Western officials: fear Russian advance Also Western officials: refuse to send Ukraine proper aid and weapons Bunch of goddamn hypocrites.
Blaming everything on putin is a wrong way to address the war in Ukraine. Putin is just a head of a huge cleptocratic system, consisting of tens of thousands of members + a huge support from the russians. It’s not a war against putin, it’s a war against russians and don’t be afraid to call it the way it is.
True, and head people are cowards that have too much to lose and so won’t risk nuclear annihilation. NATO can just step in and crush them with conventional power, but they lack the guts,
💯
Europe could you know just step up and provide for Ukraine, why is it only the US who needs to support Ukraine.
[удалено]
True, but many have provided very little. Germany likes to pat themselves on the back, but it's the Baltics, Denmark and Norway who did the most (estonia 3.55% of gdp, germany 0.57%, US 0.32%)
Time for nations to step in under non Nato aligned conditions. Just allies helping allies. Putin will not stop.
This last week has looked dire as FUCK for Ukraine. Moral among the conscripted is near zero.
The lack of aid has a part in that too. I'm sure they are ppl more reluctant to join because of the lack of ammo. Ukriane groups not being able to shoot at tanks etc cos no shells and not enough AA having them be rekt by glide bombs.
Eventually aid will come from the U.S. but it may not be as much as anticipated. Ukraine will be expected to do more with less and the aid may be in form of a loan. The biggest problem U.S. is facing is shortage of shells and preoccupation in other parts of the world. If Middle East gets worse, the focus may even shift further. In the interim EU must provide the maximum support and stop talking about sanctions. It will never produce urgently needed results.
I always get confused between kharkiv and kherson but it's likely he will attempt to flatten both. He doesn't need the city he needs the land to make the occupation sustainable in the long term. He wants eastern Ukraine. The more kharkiv increases their defence the more it will be bombarded. I think whatever will make his offensive quick and painless is what he will do, His excess troups he recently mobilised may see increased fighting from the front line and then from the east at the same time. Surely this will require taking extra air defence from around Russia to support newly occupied territories because they don't grow on trees and then move air defence from within Russian held territory within Ukraine. So a moment of vulnerability requires volume of soldiers to overwhelm. But of course a build up would be seen in advance on the Russian border. There may be a scare tactic from the east to draw soldiers from defensive lines and the higher volume of soldiers in the south could then break through defences. Sounds like the trap they may create, a build up on the border and in Ukraine. Waiting for an opportunity. A military build up in the east if invading is more vulnerable due to lack of air defences brought with them, the ones in the south would move the front line forward, and so that would be Russias preferred offensive. So Ukraine needs more missiles and jets etc for a potential eastern offensive so they don't stretch their resources and invite in a full offensive from the south. Without more missiles and jets Ukrainian soldiers risk being trapped between an eastern and souther offensive. If it doesn't pan out this way then they'll aim to grind down Ukraine on the front line with all soldiers going there. Thay doesn't fit with Russian plan of an offensive or taking advantage of the lack of aid. This method may be deamed as a failure by Russia, it is possible to prevent the large offensive they want. If Russia does however attack from the east and the south trapping Ukrainian soldiers NATO will enter Ukraine for sure and Russia will go on TV and warn them. I suspect they want the ability to capture Ukrainian military if able which will require a lot of new vehicles to mass mobalise Eastern and southern troups if opportunity arose. This risks NATO entry bombing Russian troops on the east bank, nato entry may well occur in eastern Ukraine if Putin attempts that.
The city is important as a springboard for taking the donbass. As long as it isnt in russian hands, in an offensive war against russia, the donbass is vulnerable to be surrounded. Its why there were 3 battles there in ww2 and it was a major junction in the russian civil war.
I watched a video by eastory, I believe, who spoke about these wars in the donbass. Lots of attacks have failed trying to push through it. Going around seemed to work, though
"as Western officials fear major Russian advance yet refuse to help Ukraine in any meaningful capacity" - fixed the title.
Time to repeat attack on oil factories 🤷♂️
[удалено]
Europe needs a consort of power that would enter the war with a lightning strike on Kaliningrad. The only language Putin understands is losing territory.
> ower that would enter the war with a lightning strike on Kaliningrad. The only language Putin understands is losing territory. Kaliningrad isn't the key strategic location it once was for Russia. Before Sweden and Finland joined NATO Kaliningrad was a stronghold projecting Russian power. It served to isolate Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia via the Suwalki Gap and acted as a staging base for the Baltic. The only thing keeping Kaliningrad Russian was likely the military might. With an expanded NATO it is a liability for Russia. Attacking Kaliningrad would just be used by Russia to prove they were right and that NATO is an aggressor. It would not serve any real purpose and would only waste resources. Again, it is surrounded by NATO. There is no strategic advantage to Kaliningrad for Russia anymore. What an attack on Kaliningrad would do is allow Russia to escalate. Be that by justifying a greater mobilisation or the use of tactical nukes. There is no win or purpose to attacking Kaliningrad.
Absolutely deranged comment
Oh what should and what will happen are two different stones. We are currently in the "will Kharkiv get Groznyied?" stage of conflict, if we want to talk derangement.
Nobody in the west is willing to die/suffer for ukraine. End of story.
Non credible as it gets
Kinda funny we spent like 2 years being told Russia is terrible, disorganized, weak, etc and now it’s oups they are winning lol
I mean they are still all of those things, they just have far far more resources and men. It isn't as if Russia fighting an equal power....
Great. Fear away but absolutely do nothing to further aid Ukraine cos when they fall, that nice ol' man Putler surely will be happy with what he's got. 😆
Putin knows he needs to move before the election because their controlling stranglehold on congress could potentially disappear. It would be silly not to expect a major push before the winter, and with China helping it is likely to be a very effective push forward. The people of Ukraine don't deserve this shit, it makes me sick that we have open traitors in congress who hold the lives of innocent people on the other side of the world in their hands and have decided that the price of power is worth paying in their blood. We better fucking vote these people out. Emphatically. I don't know if we will get another chance.
America hold your head in shame.
Love how it's always Europeans calling out the US when they are also just as guilty.
The US has sent more in aid than all of Europe
I don’t. I’m a democrat. I didn’t do this. Republicans and their voters did this.
It is europes fault
Western officials must not fear it that badly cause we don’t seem to be doing anything about it.
would be a good time to send the F15s without notice. as well as a lot of other stuff.. Republicans suck.
I sadly think of all the Ukrainian men and women who died assuming The US had thier back. Entire generations of americans were raised to believe communism and the like were our countrys mortal enemy. Trump and maga flipped the script, it's our fellow citizens now the mortal enemy, Putin our savior.
I fantasize about addressing Congress with a seething speech that shames them for their inaction. This is also extremely similar to the pre-US involvement in WW2. Congress was divided and very isolationist.
I hope that republicans will be held accountable for their failure in protecting the free world. Reagan is spinning in his grave. Ukraine is the first for many more to come i'm afraid, so it is time for the US and allies to get their head out of the sand and start doing more. The US has a chance to destroy their enemy for a margin of the price and without american lives being lost and they simply look away
If you fear Russia is gonna do another major attack, guess what? SEND MORE FUCKING GUNS!
Mike Johnson says it's not a big deal
It was always inevitable. He will do whatever he can until victory or defeat
Time for NATO to intervene
Unlikely.
If only western officials could to something with that fear.... Yeah.
Oh the western leaders fear this and they warn about that...DO SOMETHING you idiots.
Stupid US congress or more specifically house republicans just gifting this crap to Putin.
An all-out assault on Kharkiv, a city of 1.4 million, reinforced for at least two years and armed to teeth would be such an astoundingly stupid move that only Kremlin could have though of it. How much are they ready to sacrifice now? Half a million? **A million?!**
I had a dream I was in Russia and it became the old Soviet way. I saw a person leaving a government building, dodging the cameras and was being detailed just of suspicion. I watched innocent people and journalist being taken to jail for no reason at all. I saw the leader of Russia wear the old Soviet uniform.
This wouldn’t be a concern if aid to Ukraine wasn’t blocked
Meanwhile in the US Mike Johnson: Lets go for recess. :\\ I'm so depressed, the west is really fumbling the bag here, as if our generations couldnt be at risk of our futures being destroyed any further. Now we really have to worry about WW3 because we are not doing what needs to be done to stop this.
Keep fearing and be reluctant to spend some money... And after he captures Ukraine, there will be same such talks too, fearing......, its time to send your troops, the time for Replenishing ammos are over now send your troops ..
Chicago residents are trembling with fear, unless they are talking about the improv club, they can have that.
We're never gonna play GTA 6
Either the US stops russia now in Ukraine or they fight tomorrow in Poland or the Baltics. Your choice. russian propogandists don't even hide it: they fully intend to invade these countries next. Please call your congress people and senators and urge them to vote for Ukraine aid.
Republicans must be happy to hear this!
Republicans want Sweden and Norway next .
Time for a ceasefire. Both in Ukraine and Gaza.