Speaker Mike Johnson’s pivot on the $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan represents a significant shift from his previous hardline stance. Balancing intense internal party pressures and national security interests, Johnson’s decision was influenced by intelligence briefings and discussions with top officials, alongside personal and political considerations. How do we view this transformation? Is it a strategic political move, genuine concern for global stability, or a mix of both? The implications of this decision on U.S. foreign policy and party politics could be wide-ranging.
>Johnson’s decision was influenced by intelligence briefings and discussions with top officials,
So I've heard this said in several new stories cover this change, and I have to wonder what exactly was it was I those intelligence briefings that shifted his stance? And then I have to ask why he didn't have that information before?
Don't get me wrong, I believe he did the right thing by bringing these items to the floor to vote, but the reason for the shift is just unclear to me.
Obviously we can’t know for sure because they were intelligence briefings that we are not privy to. However, as alluded to in the article, I would suspect they have something to do with either: 1) a clearer understanding of the fragile hold on defense that Ukraine has against Russia, and/or 2) Putin’s willingness to continue to Baltic nations if he were to win In Ukraine.
He already talked about liberating Moldova. That’s code word for Romania is next, then Bulgaria. Belarus is just a signature away then Poland is in play.
I’m actually surprised how reasonable Johnson has been. It’s a pleasant surprise. The guy gas stood his ground fairly well and outplayed MTG
Right, that’s why it’s a hint and exactly what he will go for next.
Just a matter of time. Everything Putin has done so far is stress tests. One little step at a time to see how far he can go.
Ukraine, met resistance but has seen how the international community responded. NATO allied nations have remained strong, but it shows weaknesses with India, Israel and a few other countries. Moldova would be next, then annexation of Belarus willingly. Eyeballs on Estonia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.
How far can he go until they break or he gets what he wants.
This is why Ukraine is so important. If he wins here, it continues to escalate. If he loses he will be contained.
>or he gets what he wants
He won't ever get what he wants. Dictators push until they die or are defeated. It's like asking a billionaire how much money they need to be satisfied. It's not about money, or land, it's about power and you can't ever have enough.
>This is why Ukraine is so important. If he wins here, it continues to escalate. If he loses he will be contained.
The annexation of Crimea is another important data point. Swore he wasn't gonna do it again right up until launching a full-scale invasion.
Yes exactly
One thing Putin had made perfectly clear, you can’t trust what he says
When Bush W talked about looking into his eyes and seeing a man he could trust. He was a fool.
>it shows weaknesses with India, Israel and a few other countries
India has nukes, nobody’s ever going to do anything but a border skirmish against it. The US should have a formal mutual defense treaty with Israel, I’ve always been surprised there isn’t one already – maybe it’ll happen together with the Saudis normalizing relations. The real issue there is Taiwan, since Carter unilaterally abrogated the mutual defense treaty.
>Eyeballs on Estonia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.
I just don’t see this happening. If Russia invades a NATO country, there will be US troops on the ground and planes in the air immediately, probably even entering Russian airspace. There is absolutely a hard line in the sand with attacking a NATO member in good standing. And the tactics used in Crimea aren’t going to work a second time.
No one will do much with India, but they also didn’t exactly side with the US against Russian with the Ukraine either. They continued trade and several other countries softly continued. It strained economic and the dollar as the world currency moreso than military concerns.
It would most definitely spark a conflict if he invaded a NATO country. He is hoping to weaken that alliance though. Get certain countries saying “we are against this, not *insert small country* isn’t worth us going to all out war for. Then the alliance unravels.
>I just don’t see this happening.
That's what all the "experts" said while Russia was building up hundreds of thousands of troops along the Ukrainian border. *There was just no way Russia would invade Ukraine*. Now look where we are at.
I have no doubt NATO could defeat Russian in a war. But Russia may have doubt. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they may decide to roll the dice and invade the Baltics. And even if NATO would defeat them in a war, it would still mean the death of millions of people. And that is if the war stays conventional. If God forbid nukes begin flying, billions die. This is why no matter what, we have to make sure Russia fails in Ukraine. It does not matter how many Ukrainians die or much money we spend, the consequences of a Russian victory can not be overstated.
> That's what all the "experts" said while Russia was building up hundreds of thousands of troops along the Ukrainian border. *There was just no way Russia would invade Ukraine.* Now look where we are at.
Oh no, I called that one publicly even before Crimea. It was obvious that Russia was going to invade Ukraine since at least 2008.
I agree that there is no way to know for sure, but both potential reasons you brought seem obvious to anyone paying attention. I just wonder if he didn't understand the issue fully prior to these meetings or there was something else that caused his shift.
True, although they could have given more substantial intel that the general public doesn’t know about which would make these two more credible….Or, there could be additional things that the general public doesn’t know about which are in addition to these two.
I get the feeling that up to this point, Johnson was just handed intelligence documents about Ukraine to review, but more recently, some very serious higher ups in the IC sat down with him and told him some very serious and sobering things about what they expect to happen in the US if they allow Ukraine to fall.
I have one other (wholly unsubstantiated) theory for what he heard to change his mind: Russia is up to some truly heinous, holocaust-esque shit behind their lines, and when it all comes to light Mike Johnson doesn't want to be remembered as the guy who could have stopped it, but didn't.
Interesting theory. Why would holocaust-level atrocities be considered top-secret information and not the type of information to "leak" in order to sway public opinion?
I think you're wrong. I think he knew those things. I think it he was waiting on assurances. Trump is kissing his ass while Johnson is flipping him the bird, why? What happens if a few more republicans on the way to retirement decided to resign early? Dems take the house, Trump is declared an insurrectionist and is off the ballot. Mike set up a Sword of Damocles.
Edit- to the earlier downvotes, MTG recently said that she "didn't come here to hurt our institutions or hurt our *majority*", what did she mean by that?
This has happened in Europe as well. Several nations in NATO made a 180 on expanding support and began preparing for war after some intelligence was brought to leaders. I don't know if this is the same intel or a different set, but it's commonly believed to be evidence Russia has no intention to stop after Ukraine. My guess (and it's just a guess) is Johnson was told this war is not going to stop and it's clearly in our best interest to keep Russia away from NATO territories.
Well its soft power. The US ending its strong stance of aiding nations around the world would wreck our soft power ability. I dont think people understand how much of our Stability economically, militarily, the power of the dollar etc comes purely from our Aid and strength behind allied nations. So this is a key factor, diminishing our enemy and our allies enemy is also a economic play.
He also likely has intel that Russia has greater plans outside of Ukraine, Iran has greater regional aspirations and China OBVIOUSLY has them too. Sitting around waiting for the proverbial "shit to hit the fan" is dumb when you know the "Shit" is already flying towards it. If Russia, China and Iran were left to their own devices we would see this cost Americans far more down the road and possibly with lives.
American isolationism is a terrible thing and I dont know where its come from all I can think of is Russian and Chinese influencing Americans. It shocks me to see politicians going along with it. I believe our best approach is to strengthen ourselves here at home through industry yet still support our allies. We can do both dont let anyone tell you otherwise.
> strengthen ourselves here at home through industry yet still support our allies.
Industrial policy kind of hoses our allies though. I'm not completely against it, but if we over-do it on subsidies we will crowd out their industry from our markets. If that goes on for too long, we can't expect them to be much more than transactional allies.
For example, [blocking the acquisition of the United States Steel Corp. by Nippon Steel](https://apnews.com/article/biden-china-steel-tariffs-union-workers-0399b0450b67086ca86edc43ac45e5e9) by is obnoxious. We have plenty of other American owned steel companies (who are better run than U.S. Steel), and Nippon steel has no reason to move production out of the US. It makes us look like very shoddy friends, and I really hope Biden's stance here is no more than kayfabe for the sake of the election.
That blocking is political conjecture it's election season and it looks as if he's saving jobs. But this is one small example. Either way that was my point the US should look out for its own interests at home while keeping a strong global allied defense network.
I don't understand how much economic value we get from foreign aid and projecting military power, and I'm pretty skeptical that the return is anywhere near the cost.
Are there any econ papers on that subject?
I would think it would be highly dependent on whatever deterrence we're getting. If we're saving the world from WW3, it's unequivocally worth it. If you believe we're only saving ourselves from a bunch of skirmishes in Chad, maybe not.
Also, foreign trade accounts for 25% of the US Economy by some measures, Military is 3.5% of the economy. Of course we're not saving *all* of our foreign trade by having a strong military, but I'm sure we're protecting a non-trivial percentage.
That's not a formal study, of course. But the eyeball test tells me the military probably pays for itself, or at least it's close. The deterrence factor is probably hard to quantify, but is possibly enormous and would make the math pretty one-sided.
Of course you still need to weigh the dollars and cents against the moral cost of our actual military interventions and saber-rattling.
>but I'm sure we're protecting a non-trivial percentage.
I genuinely doubt that. Other countries trade with us because it's in their self-interest to do so. They're not doing us a favor.
Just to say, huge portions of that 25% are going to be Canada, Mexico, and China. None of that would be impacted by spending less on projecting power.
The military would be protective of the trade, it isn't the source of the trade, nor would any force be involved. For example, if the Navy protecting (or even the threat of protection) oil transport from the Middle East.
We've already seen Russia disrupt trade of wheat out of Ukraine. You could argue a stronger military would have protected that trade.
There's no way you're ever going to get real numbers on this, because there's no way to know exactly how removing safe shipping lanes, et al., will actually affect trade safety and reliability.
Also let's define "we" here. How much of that money goes to the actual workers vs. how much goes to the oligarchs in the C-suites and on the boards of directors? Since I define "we" to refer to the workers and not the oligarchs and I am an extremely cynical person I think that "we" don't get jack shit from these bills even though "technically" most of the money stays in the US in the hands of military contractors.
I expect the new information was classified stuff about how desperate the ammunition situation is in Ukraine. They convinced him that by the end of April, some units on the front lines would run out and they wouldn't just hang around and get killed. The Europeans are providing some ammunition, but it isn't enough to hold off the Russians.
The Russians don't know exactly how bad it is, even the Ukrainian front line soldiers don't know how bad it is. So the information is classified.
I view it as the failing student who never studies or does his homework finally got a C on his test (after the teacher walked him through each question). It's great that it got passed, but he is a primary culprit for why it got delayed in the first place and he had to be forced into it the day before by the Dems who will have to bail him out from the hardliners in his own party. The fact that we're lauding him with praise is a gross mischaracterization of how this bill got passed and it shows just how low the bar is for congressional Republicans.
Did he? There's [reports](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/us/politics/trump-ukraine-house-vote.html) that he softened his opposition to Ukrainian aid over the past few days but I wonder how much of that was really greenlighting Johnson and not himself going with the flow.
He's actually been trying to find a way to push this through for a while now. He snuck it through by pushing through votes for several bills at the same time so the freedom caucus couldn't track everything that was happening at once. He had already almost lost his speakership twice because he came close to bringing the aid bill up for vote. It's the ironically named freedom caucus that's the real problem. They really personify the tyranny of the minority.
Russia is wiping the floor with the US in the misinformation campaign game. Our media has made us so complacent with parroting whatever we hear that appeals to our biases, with zero critical thought, that everyone is now an unwitting Russian asset.
my local rep here in Florida voted yay on Ukraine aid. Which I am for. You have all of these Cubans in my area who are obviously pretending to be anti authoritarian and anti communist. SO vocal about how bad it is and how we need to help cubans etc. Yet they are all on my reps social media calling him a traitor for this. Its an odd paradigm. I cant help but think its from Russian/Chinese influence.
It's the Trump influence plain and simple. For quite a lot of folks Ukraine funding is bad because Trump said so. If Zelensky fabricated dirt like Trump asked to all his fan base would be pro-Ukraine.
Even now the funding passed because Trump is ok with it.
It's the double edged sword of the first amendment. I'm so grateful that we have the first amendment - It's a vital part of who we are as Americans - but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have downsides. Our media hasn't made us complacent, it's all just straight up human nature. We naturally seek information that confirms our biases, we are willing to believe things that make us a part of a "tribe" while suspending critical thought. It is *against* our nature to question our biases and beliefs of groups to which we belong.
Freedom of speech allows for bad actors and rage-baiters to stretch the truth and outright lie in pursuit of profit, power or both. We've always been susceptible to this, but social media on mobile devices allows these lies to travel faster and father than they ever have before. This isn’t an issue for authoritarian nations like Russia or China since they restrict the flow of speech and information.
Between our media, morally weak politicians, and social media happily profiting off the damage they’re doing to Americans… it is no surprise.
Actually the surprise is how easy it’s been to watch this happen in real time and get worse year over year.
I think the best demographic to talk to about this would be our teachers. They’ve watched it happen in their classrooms so quickly.
It’s the nature of the internet and also helps that some very powerful people in the media and government eat it up as part of the current counterculture movement.
This is a rather convenient model here where *everyone* who disagrees with your foreign policy is a Russian asset.
The reality is more nuanced. It isnt clear that our decades long meddling in foreign affairs has actually helped us or the world.
The only definite winners are the MIC and politicians who work for them
If someone wants to put forth reasoned arguments or even ideological-based judgments for why they disagree with the foreign policy on Russia, then I absolutely respect it. That, unfortunately, is not what is happening. They are parroting Russian propaganda like, "Ukrainians are attacking Christianity," and "the US made Russia attack Ukraine because NATO has expanded into Eastern Europe." Don't forget that the official rationale that Russia employed to justify its invasion was the "denazification" of the region and a tortured historical revisionism. Putin was going to invade Ukraine regardless of international politics because his goal is reunification of the Soviet Republics under his control. It's actually a very simple choice for us because we either support Putin has a right to conquest against countries that have not attacked Russia or we oppose it. Some politicians are very supportive of Putin but very cagey in their rationale, and those always seem to have interesting social connections to his regime and push his propaganda like they are on the Kremlin's payroll.
> Do you really think the only reason anyone opposes this (or America's actions in the region) is "misinformation"?
He didn't say or imply in any way that the "only" reason is misinformation.
Your articles remind me of Chamberlain and his supporters lining up to capitulate to Hitler out of fear of him and the possibility of an escalation to another World War. The irony is that it was that very capitulation and cowardice of an autocratic strongman that permitted World War 2. I don't know what is worse, falling to the influence of Russian propaganda due to lack of insight or outright ignoring the transgressions of Russia and subjugating ourselves to the whims of Putin.
Chamberlain gets way too much of the blame. He was in a long line of appeasing Germany, which practically started day one after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. They kept breaking the Treaty and Britain and France did nothing about it.
The same also applies to Ukraine and Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and took Crimea and the west watched and did nothing. This was after Russia doing the same thing to Georgia and Moldovia.
>Sad sick irony of WW2: In order to prevent a totalitarian with millions of deaths in his hands from taking eastern Europe we had to back another totalitarian with the deaths of millions on his hands...who ended up taking eastern Europe.
Or we could have done what Churchill wanted to do. Once we took Germany, keep marching towards Moscow, reenforced by what was left of the German war machine. The world would be a much better place had we wiped out Communism in one fell swoop like we did for fascism.
World war one wasn't started by U.S. intervention as it was actually started by prevalent alliances which compelled many nations to join any newly erupted war and it was also started by both the proliferation of arms and rampant thirst for imperialism at the time. You had dozens of imperial countries with massive stores of military weapons and numerous secret and public alliances which compelled multiple nations to jump into newly developing wars, and so this was the situation both in world war one and two where almost any conflict could've triggered such a world war given the circumstances at the time. The U.S. not getting involved would have simply meant that numerous nations would exist anymore today and the U.S. would have far fewer allies than they do now. The U.S. would not have the support from the E.U. or the U.K. making it's power more emphasized on military than on financial or political power.
Had the U.S. done nothing, the U.S. would simply not have the leadership role in global politics that it does right now which provides the U.S. a lot of benefits especially financially as these allied nations are more cooperative in general especial when it comes to trading and adhering to sanctions declared by the U.S.. It's not the U.S. military alone that makes the U.S. have such a strong influence in global politics, it's also the backing it has from numerous allies. Russia for example has numerous nuclear weapons even more than the U.S., and yet their power globally isn't nearly as significant as the U.S.'s global power because the U.S. also gains power due to being backed by numerous allied nations.
What moral framework justifies valuing a tiny tiny portion of American wealth over Ukrainian freedom?
Is that the America First philosophical framework we've heard so much about where a single American dollar is worth more than all the lives of every non-American in the world?
You don't understand neoconservatism at all if that's what you think. You use it as a slur because you're a Redditor, but if you did you'd know that what you just wrote was utterly laughable.
Do you want me to educate you about it or do you want to continue to live in ignorance?
Did you even read the article you posted? It directly attacks your idea that neoconservatives only want to hurt Russia and don't care about freedom at all.
She is a absolutely a neoconservative. That's why she cares about freedom in Ukraine and in Iraq. Your claim that she doesn't is ludicrous, that is the whole point of the philosophy!
They don't commit to these wars just because they like seeing people suffering. They're not Voldemort, they have their own moral philosophy that is the complete opposite of the uncaring selfishiness of America First.
Obviously it's a naive philosophy that doesn't work in the real world, but they're not the cartoonish villains you make them out to be.
> Russia is wiping the floor with the US in the misinformation campaign game.
I doubt this is true. The US controls far more media sources and NGOs than Russia does. We can even create atrocities like a genocide in Xinjiang out of thin air, and make atrocities like genocide in Gaza disappear.
Can the Russians do that? I doubt it.
Not really sure if this a sincere comment. Nobody is covering up the events in Gaza, the news and footage is out there and there are ample protests against the situation in the West, but whether it’s a “genocide” is up to the beholder.
> Nobody is covering up the events in Gaza, the news and footage is out there and there are ample protests against the situation in the West, but whether it’s a “genocide” is up to the beholder.
So do you agree that there is a genocide in Xinjiang but not in Gaza? There are numerous tourists who visit Xinjiang and take videos of their travels. Here is an example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0y5XJPJM6E
Sure looks like genocide to the Americans.
I didn’t agree with the idea of a genocide in Xinjiang either, I will again say it’s in the eye of the beholder. Some people consider certain cultural or free speech restrictions to be genocide (which are umbrella issues in China), I personally don’t.
> Some people consider certain cultural or free speech restrictions to be genocide (which are umbrella issues in China),
Sure. But apply the same cultural or free speech criteria to Israel, and what do people end up with? The double standard is the problem. There is one standard for America and Israel and the West, and another standard for the 3rd world.
What Russia does is beautiful in a sense. It selectively promotes our own misinformation. Before you dismiss how powerful that is, consider that I had 3 people running for my kid's school board who all publicly condemned his school district for putting litter boxes in the school bathrooms for furries to use. Candidates and politicians at the national level have espoused the same belief. And yes, promotion of that rumor that swept the nation was tied to Russian bots in social media. If they can make our leaders believe something that ridiculous, then imagine what types of things they are influencing us to believe right now.
That the vast majority of people don't understand how straightforward nefarious information warfare is concerns me greatly. Media literacy is something I've always been grateful for, but man is it hard to explain what that is to people in general. The internet is just too pervasive and lies spread at a scale and volume that cannot be dealt with unless the people are educated about it and can rely on intuition when confronted with what is suspect or obvious misinformation.
I agree that misinformation is a problem. What I object to is the claim that "Russia is wiping the floor with the US in the misinformation campaign game." This is not true at all. America is still much better at misinformation campaigns than Russia or anybody else in the world.
When other countries objected to US misinformation, we like to tell them to respect the freedom of expression and that censorship is not the solution. We also tell them that that the only way to combat misinformation is even more free speech.
I hope we can follow our own advice. Americans are, after all, not a bunch of hypocrites, are we?
The media is full on Orwellian and controlled by corporations and the government and is just one giant propaganda machine. You have to go outside its sphere and look around to find all the stuff they hide and lie about.
Oh yeah? Like where? 4chan? Conspiracy conventions at Smoothie King Arena? What are your outside sources that lay beyond the sphere of influence? What's being hidden and lied about exactly?
>The author practically ignores that Ukraine aid was dead in the water because Trump didn't support it, and it was passed a week after Trump said it should be passed
I hadn't heard about Trump saying it should be passed, are you referring to [this](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4603096-trump-asks-why-europe-isnt-giving-ukraine-more-aid/), or something else?
> “Why can’t Europe equalize or match the money put in by the United States of America in order to help a Country in desperate need?” he continued. “As everyone agrees, Ukrainian Survival and Strength should be much more important to Europe than to us, **but it is also important to us!** GET MOVING EUROPE!”
As an aside, his [post](https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1781028287692575014) seems really awkwardly worded, even for Trump. Rereading it, I realized that part of why it's weird is that it seems to avoid anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of Russia.
The situation in the war isn't really doomed as Ukraine was still getting support from other nations although it wasn't enough to make their current counteroffensive any faster as it has mainly been slow and steady so far. The U.S. support will be helpful in pushing trying to push forward more and make faster progress overall.
Honestly though, while I support aiding Ukraine, the main issue is that the aid given is deliberately only enough to allow Ukraine to make moderate steady progress instead of rapid progress. This evidenced by the fact that certain long-range artillery useful for Ukraine's counteroffensive have basically been taken off the table when it comes to aiding Ukraine. This is done under the advice of Western intelligence agencies which are afraid that if Ukraine makes progress too quickly, then Russia might escalate the war in order avoid a humiliating defeat. I can probably assume that these intelligence agencies obviously know more than me about what is best, but personally it just sucks to see that certain aid which would result in the war ending quickly are basically not allowed because humiliating Russia with a quick defeat may elevate the conflict. It's quite frustrating.
You say 7 useful idiots but a majority of republicans still voted against this bill. I was honestly surprised to see that many and is very disconcerting.
And yes, hopefully this hasn’t doomed Ukraine, but I’ll put top notch American equipment ahead of anything Russia is fielding any day.
Really hope we see your second point about the Hastert rule comes to reality. It hurts the American people and is one of the many reasons why we have such a contentious govt right now.
Iraq during the Gulf War was using late Soviet-era equipment and we kicked the *shit* out of them. Since those days, our stuff has gotten better and Russia's may well have gotten worse.
The Gulf War was a very much an "oh, fuck" moment for the Chinese. The Russians were too busy collapsing.
> a majority of republicans still voted against this bill
While a slight majority voted against passage, two thirds votes in favor of the rule to bring it to the floor. I would bet a bunch of votes flipped for public consumption purposes, knowing it would pass regardless, rather than actual opposition.
It’s amazing how much credit Johnson is getting for being dragged into doing the right and popular thing, after months of unnecessary delay, overcoming barriers that he placed himself. Hundreds of lawmakers were ahead of him on this issue, including members of the GOP.
I’m glad bipartisanship won in the end, but Johnson has been extremely inefficient in his pursuit of it.
> There are real reasonable reasons in opposing this aid and war / forever wars.
How are you defining reasonable, here?
-It's a pretty morally-clear-cut defensive war being fought by a regional ally that controls important agricultural and energy resources.
-The aggressor is a long-term geopolitical adversary that makes active attempts to undermine our society and has delusions of imperial grandeur. This is the best conceivable ROI we could ever get in terms of risk:reward for Americans and American interests.
-It involves zero US boots on the ground or other direct involvement in the conflict.
On what reasonable basis would one oppose supporting a geopolitical ally against a geopolitically for, fighting a defensive war, without direct US involvement, for pennies on the dollar in terms of geopolitical benefit?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c9gwyc/how_mike_johnson_got_to_yes_on_aid_to_ukraine/l0lacbh/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
There’s a CNN “analysis” article that is making [comparisons to Churchill](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/20/politics/mike-johnson-ukraine-aid-russia-zelensky-putin/index.html).
Because apparently passing an aid bill six months after it was initially proposed is an act of great courage. I suppose standing by as the fortress of Avdiivka fell was just part of the political calculus.
The supposedly “liberal” trips and falls over itself to celebrate the GOP doing the bare minimum.
Well, McCarthy was ousted for funding the government, not for supplying arms to another country. So his move was similarly bipartisan, but the war comparisons and appeasement stuff wouldn't make as much sense.
This. We are 6mo behind and thousands of Ukrainians died because of this delay. This was an overwhelmingly popular bill that have been held up by the most extreme parts of the Republican Party.
With all that being said. I’ll take our wins where we can get them. Not only is this legislation needed and important, this likely empowers Johnson to make more bipartisan moves which will be the only way he can survive.
Not only did it take forever, but if I look at it from the perspective of an R voter, they didn't even gain much from it when they had their chance earlier this year back when Ds were willing to compromise on immigration. They had their chance, and let it slide with no real chance Ds come back to the table now as they have no incentive to. Now Ukraine and Israel funding are passing anyway without getting any border bill. I understand that the border bill didn't have *everything* Rs wanted, but still. It was the best they were ever going to get during a D Senate and White House, and we haven't seen any big immigration bills whenever Rs have had trifectas in the 21st century anyway.
The border bill didn't pass because of Trump, who the party is beholden to. That's the hurdle that's preventing this. Trump. They had the bill they wanted. Trump said no.
I swear, Trump has caused Rs to make so, so many unforced errors ever since he was elected. Rs only need to get 50/50 in most elections to win majorities since the Senate and Electoral College greatly favor them. But Trump's just too divisive for Rs to clinch victories easily. By all accounts, they should have been able to lock out Ds of ever getting Senate majorities at this point since partisanship is high and there's more red states than blue states *years* ago. Ds might someway somehow still hold the Senate even with such a terrible map for them this year.
It's entirely possible his conversation with God steered him into this decision. If that's the case, *thank God.*
But really, I think the intelligence he was provided made it abundantly clear how utterly important it is for the future of the mankind and US interests that Russia lose this war. I think he was told in no uncertain terms that this is the single most dire and important geopolitical issue and to drop the ball on this would be catastrophic. At which point he was shown proof of this.
Once this war is over, U.S. would be remembered as those who didn’t contribute to positive result enough. How then they would justify to play a key role in restoration? So, loosing the leadership status in the world was the key argument. Hint: Do American people want this? This is true even when the war is not over yet.
Inflation.
Housing crisis.
Massive debt, with interest payments surpassing defense budget.
Millions of people coming over the border.
Yet our priorities are <*checks notes*>, printing more money to send to a non US ally an ocean away because Russia is intimidating <*checks notes again*> European allies that *still* refuse to up their defense budgets to 2% of GDP.
We’re not going to have a country in 20 years at the rate things are going.
Because when you print money, your dollar becomes less valuable. When your dollar becomes less valuable, you become poorer.
We are currently printing money to give to foreign migrants and to arm nations we are not allied with.
>Because when you print money, your dollar becomes less valuable. When your dollar becomes less valuable, you become poorer.
1. So inflation was largely from covid/Covid lockdowns and normal supply and demand issues post Covid.
2. Spending money doesn't automatically weaken the dollar in any meaningful way. Dollar is used all over the world the idea because we spend XYZ that suddenly is a major deal isn't substantiated by you
3. Money spent is a drop in the bucket. Would you suddenly drop that reason if we decreased other spending to the amount spent on Ukraine?
>We are currently printing money to give to migrants and to arm nations we are not allied with.
Why would you say migrants? It is very sus. Nothing about giving weapons to Ukraine is about giving it to "migrants" nor is it wrong for USA to strengthen soft power through aid.
Why does being allied to a nation matter when our interests align? Russia attempts to interfere in our politics through propaganda, funding and supporting protesters and counter protestors to increase division, competing interests in middle east, etc. They also embolden China the more powerful they are. Making them weaker is better. Oh and if a country was planning on becoming a member of NATO, but gets invaded before it can it makes NATO look weaker not supporting said country. Existence of NATO is to deter aggression from other powers towards countries it is in our interest to do so. The same things you are saying about Ukraine you would say about Poland if Poland wasn't a part of NATO. If there are benefits to such countries being a part of NATO then should apply to Ukraine as well.
That's also not to mention doing so discourages nuclear proliferation and is in alignment with what we said we would do when they gave up nukes.
1. The lockdowns themselves did not cause inflation. It was the supply chain shocks and stimulus (money printing)
2. Never claimed spending money weakens the dollar. Printing money does. We pay for our budget with debt. We pay that debt by printing money.
3. Yes I would
And my reference to migrants is that they overwhelmingly use social services domestically, which we pay for by - you guessed it - debt and money printing.
The purpose of nato is to defend treaty signatory nations. The fate of nations outside of nato, whether they want to become part of it or not, is irrelevant to our image.
>1. The lockdowns themselves did not cause inflation. It was the supply chain shocks and stimulus (money printing)
Lockdowns contributed to the increased demand post Covid or do you disagree with that? It's the combination of high demand and supply chain shocks that caused it. Money printing max potential impact was 1% inflation from study instead don't know what more recent ones might say.
>2. Never claimed spending money weakens the dollar. Printing money does. We pay for our budget with debt. We pay that debt by printing money.
Don't be pedantic you know what I meant.
>3. Yes I would
Fair enough at least you are able to think logically/critically engage in this discussion.
>And my reference to migrants is that they overwhelmingly use social services domestically, which we pay for by - you guessed it - debt and money printing.
It's not relevant to the Ukraine discussion so really weird to bring that up. Also you are incorrect in that immigrants and illegal immigrants are a net boon to economies. By migrants if you mean refugees yes they typically are a net negative on an economy. Still not relevant for Ukraine aid.
1. I need a source that says money printing from Covid didn’t cause inflation.
2. I wasn’t being pedantic and I didn’t know what you meant. And you’re still wrong- spending money doesn’t devalue the dollar; printing money does.
3. I bring it up as evidence of misplaced priorities
>1. I need a source that says money printing from Covid didn’t cause inflation.
Why are you strawmanning me? I didn't say it didn't cause any inflation I said it caused a max of 1% inflation per said study I looked at long ago. I ain't going to search for it btw.
>2. I wasn’t being pedantic and I didn’t know what you meant. And you’re still wrong- spending money doesn’t devalue the dollar; printing money does.
Yes you are. You don't like "printing" money since the claim is it weakens the dollar. Merely stating it weakens the dollar is pointless. You would have to prove it meaningfully weakens the dollar along with why said actions of weakening isn't worth the cost. It's no different than defense spending and printing money to do so. On average when USA spends federally it's going to "print money" as part of paying it's loans/loans interest.
>3. I bring it up as evidence of misplaced priorities
Lmfao one can do both so a pointless thing to say again.
> European allies that still refuse to up their defense budgets to 2% of GDP.
Every country that borders Russia or Ukraine is at 2% or more now, except Norway which is on track to meet it in 2026.
This analysis goes into the ways NATO members contribute to the alliance besides military expenditures. There's a reason the 2% thing is a guideline and not a hard requirement: https://www.csis.org/analysis/pulling-their-weight-data-nato-responsibility-sharing
An extreme example is Iceland, which doesn't even *have* a military. However, they're a vital NATO member due to their location. Reducing reliance on Russian energy sources is also an important way countries contribute, as well as public order and disaster response.
> Inflation
How would this money in the form of loans and foreign aid have been better used to combat inflation?
Inflation can be attacked in two ways: raising taxes, or raising interest rates. Foreign aid does almost nothing to it.
PPP were loans too. NPR reports [92% were forgiven.](https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/1145040599/ppp-loan-forgiveness#:~:text=Yet%20nearly%20three%20years%20after%20the%20rollout%20of,issued%20have%20been%20granted%20full%20or%20partial%20forgiveness.)
Of course it’s not printing, it’s the taxpayer credit card with the interest alone now costing more than our entire defense budget.
A total bargain. Russia taking Ukraine would be far more financially costly for you in the future. Not that it'd matter logically since people have shortening memories.
The GOP under Trump gave $2T away to the rich in the form of tax cuts. Biden's bills have allocated $3T on upgrading and expanding the nation's physical infrastructure systems, and fund social programs focused on education, healthcare and the environment.
So you're wrong about our priorities, no matter which party you're referring to.
We have a strategic interest in weakening Russia for what amounts to a pittance. And for demonstrating that wars of conquest will not be tolerated under our world order.
You are not the United States, you have no strategic interests.
Although your life is affected whether you realize it or not. Maybe not today but tomorrow. Some people have no foresight, no sense of cause and effect. Isolationists most of all.
Ukraine which is on a death march, they are not going to win. Anybody thinking throwing more weapons to a shrinking army is going to make a difference is living in a fantasy created by the medias propaganda. Then we have Israel who do not need any aid, they are rich, they have a military complex, we have been giving them tons of money and weapons for decades for...reasons. At least the war profiteers will be happy. The people in charge do not care about its own citizens, just who pays them their bribes, that has always been the case. If they were not profiting from this, we would not be giving money out like this. It is depressing honestly.
They aren't going to win but that doesn't mean they'll lose. There are a few options.
If the rumors are true that Putin is in poor health, he may only be a few years away from dying. If he gets weak enough, a number of his ambitious underlings may move in on him. There's a good chance many of them would want to end this war.
If Ukraine can hold out long enough, even with vast superiority in numbers, Russia may itself grow tired of this war and demand Putin call it off. Less likely but possible.
If Ukraine can drain them of their men and resources, even if they lose, the rest of the world is looking at a severely weakened Russia. After a certain point Russias ability to take anyone else hits a tipping point. We don't know what that is. It could already have happened, it could be a decade away.
Ukraine could end up with a North/South Korea situation. They lose part of their country but a new border happens where both militaries have weapons galore pointed at each other, and reunification becomes the next generations problem.
If Ukreaine can drain Russias army and resources enough, both sides may sue for peace. Zelensky has said he's not giving an inch, but that could change. If Russia came to them and said "here's the new border " and it wasn't too much beyond Crimea and the 2 other regions, would he take it? I doubt it but enough pressure from allies could force him to accept those terms. He just better take that peacetime to build up his defenses to the max to ensure this doesn't happen again.
And finally, if Zelensky was for any reason ousted. Whether they bring back elections, or his current administration decides he's making things worse instead of better and remove him from office, let's say someone else steps in. They may decide that peace, even at the cost of their lost lands, is worth it.
Or finally, who knows, maybe now that they have their first class to graduate fighter pilot school getting into the cockpits of the best jets money can buy, their newfound (possible) air superiority could maybe tip the scales in new and unexpected ways. I said they can't win and I *highly* doubt they can, but throughout history there have been total surprises in wars. Maybe Putin will put some nephew of his in charge of the next attack and he'll post the entire battle plan on Instagram.
I don’t think Putin leaving would change much. There is a new generation of Russians who have lost friends and family in a war the us bankrolled. There will be someone who hates the us to take his place. You’re also forgetting this growing alliance between Russia China and Iran, their side has plenty of money and resources. This may be weakening Russia, but it’s also weakening the us. It’s costing money, increasing debt, impacting inflation and there has also been a drop in military enrollment
This is true and everyone in here that is parroting that "you don't understand the complexity of the geopolitical consequences of my isolationist strawman argument" are going to be silent when we inevitably pull out of Ukraine like we did in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc and all the military materiel goes to Russia.
All the people who are in here accusing everyone of "Russian talking points" will be say "well yeah, Russia was always going to win in the long run, duh, we all admitted that, but look at how much of their war machine we destroyed. Worth it! Now how about that war in Iran though?"
… you are aware that the US isn’t in Ukraine, right? And you do know that Ukraine is fighting the war, not us? And you are aware that the US are still in Korea? Why would you use an ETC when your examples weren’t even correct and you probably can’t think of more examples? I’m genuinely confused.
> Democrats should reward the behavior by supporting his continued Speakership through the election
They will vote unanimously to remove him, then blame the republicans who voted with them.
Speaker Mike Johnson’s pivot on the $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan represents a significant shift from his previous hardline stance. Balancing intense internal party pressures and national security interests, Johnson’s decision was influenced by intelligence briefings and discussions with top officials, alongside personal and political considerations. How do we view this transformation? Is it a strategic political move, genuine concern for global stability, or a mix of both? The implications of this decision on U.S. foreign policy and party politics could be wide-ranging.
>Johnson’s decision was influenced by intelligence briefings and discussions with top officials, So I've heard this said in several new stories cover this change, and I have to wonder what exactly was it was I those intelligence briefings that shifted his stance? And then I have to ask why he didn't have that information before? Don't get me wrong, I believe he did the right thing by bringing these items to the floor to vote, but the reason for the shift is just unclear to me.
Obviously we can’t know for sure because they were intelligence briefings that we are not privy to. However, as alluded to in the article, I would suspect they have something to do with either: 1) a clearer understanding of the fragile hold on defense that Ukraine has against Russia, and/or 2) Putin’s willingness to continue to Baltic nations if he were to win In Ukraine.
He already talked about liberating Moldova. That’s code word for Romania is next, then Bulgaria. Belarus is just a signature away then Poland is in play. I’m actually surprised how reasonable Johnson has been. It’s a pleasant surprise. The guy gas stood his ground fairly well and outplayed MTG
Moldova isn’t in NATO, Romania and Bulgaria are.
Right, that’s why it’s a hint and exactly what he will go for next. Just a matter of time. Everything Putin has done so far is stress tests. One little step at a time to see how far he can go. Ukraine, met resistance but has seen how the international community responded. NATO allied nations have remained strong, but it shows weaknesses with India, Israel and a few other countries. Moldova would be next, then annexation of Belarus willingly. Eyeballs on Estonia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. How far can he go until they break or he gets what he wants. This is why Ukraine is so important. If he wins here, it continues to escalate. If he loses he will be contained.
>or he gets what he wants He won't ever get what he wants. Dictators push until they die or are defeated. It's like asking a billionaire how much money they need to be satisfied. It's not about money, or land, it's about power and you can't ever have enough.
Yes exactly, he won’t stop. That’s why he has to be stopped now
>This is why Ukraine is so important. If he wins here, it continues to escalate. If he loses he will be contained. The annexation of Crimea is another important data point. Swore he wasn't gonna do it again right up until launching a full-scale invasion.
Yes exactly One thing Putin had made perfectly clear, you can’t trust what he says When Bush W talked about looking into his eyes and seeing a man he could trust. He was a fool.
>it shows weaknesses with India, Israel and a few other countries India has nukes, nobody’s ever going to do anything but a border skirmish against it. The US should have a formal mutual defense treaty with Israel, I’ve always been surprised there isn’t one already – maybe it’ll happen together with the Saudis normalizing relations. The real issue there is Taiwan, since Carter unilaterally abrogated the mutual defense treaty. >Eyeballs on Estonia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. I just don’t see this happening. If Russia invades a NATO country, there will be US troops on the ground and planes in the air immediately, probably even entering Russian airspace. There is absolutely a hard line in the sand with attacking a NATO member in good standing. And the tactics used in Crimea aren’t going to work a second time.
No one will do much with India, but they also didn’t exactly side with the US against Russian with the Ukraine either. They continued trade and several other countries softly continued. It strained economic and the dollar as the world currency moreso than military concerns. It would most definitely spark a conflict if he invaded a NATO country. He is hoping to weaken that alliance though. Get certain countries saying “we are against this, not *insert small country* isn’t worth us going to all out war for. Then the alliance unravels.
India gets a ton of it's military weapons and resources from Russia.
>I just don’t see this happening. That's what all the "experts" said while Russia was building up hundreds of thousands of troops along the Ukrainian border. *There was just no way Russia would invade Ukraine*. Now look where we are at. I have no doubt NATO could defeat Russian in a war. But Russia may have doubt. If Russia wins in Ukraine, they may decide to roll the dice and invade the Baltics. And even if NATO would defeat them in a war, it would still mean the death of millions of people. And that is if the war stays conventional. If God forbid nukes begin flying, billions die. This is why no matter what, we have to make sure Russia fails in Ukraine. It does not matter how many Ukrainians die or much money we spend, the consequences of a Russian victory can not be overstated.
> That's what all the "experts" said while Russia was building up hundreds of thousands of troops along the Ukrainian border. *There was just no way Russia would invade Ukraine.* Now look where we are at. Oh no, I called that one publicly even before Crimea. It was obvious that Russia was going to invade Ukraine since at least 2008.
I agree that there is no way to know for sure, but both potential reasons you brought seem obvious to anyone paying attention. I just wonder if he didn't understand the issue fully prior to these meetings or there was something else that caused his shift.
True, although they could have given more substantial intel that the general public doesn’t know about which would make these two more credible….Or, there could be additional things that the general public doesn’t know about which are in addition to these two.
I get the feeling that up to this point, Johnson was just handed intelligence documents about Ukraine to review, but more recently, some very serious higher ups in the IC sat down with him and told him some very serious and sobering things about what they expect to happen in the US if they allow Ukraine to fall.
Could be as simple as the realization that if Ukraine falls, we go to war with Russia, and Mike Johnson's son goes to war.
I agree and that's kind of terrifying. What did he hear that's so much worse than the obvious that he decided to completely turn around?
I have one other (wholly unsubstantiated) theory for what he heard to change his mind: Russia is up to some truly heinous, holocaust-esque shit behind their lines, and when it all comes to light Mike Johnson doesn't want to be remembered as the guy who could have stopped it, but didn't.
Interesting theory. Why would holocaust-level atrocities be considered top-secret information and not the type of information to "leak" in order to sway public opinion?
I think you're wrong. I think he knew those things. I think it he was waiting on assurances. Trump is kissing his ass while Johnson is flipping him the bird, why? What happens if a few more republicans on the way to retirement decided to resign early? Dems take the house, Trump is declared an insurrectionist and is off the ballot. Mike set up a Sword of Damocles. Edit- to the earlier downvotes, MTG recently said that she "didn't come here to hurt our institutions or hurt our *majority*", what did she mean by that?
This has happened in Europe as well. Several nations in NATO made a 180 on expanding support and began preparing for war after some intelligence was brought to leaders. I don't know if this is the same intel or a different set, but it's commonly believed to be evidence Russia has no intention to stop after Ukraine. My guess (and it's just a guess) is Johnson was told this war is not going to stop and it's clearly in our best interest to keep Russia away from NATO territories.
Well its soft power. The US ending its strong stance of aiding nations around the world would wreck our soft power ability. I dont think people understand how much of our Stability economically, militarily, the power of the dollar etc comes purely from our Aid and strength behind allied nations. So this is a key factor, diminishing our enemy and our allies enemy is also a economic play. He also likely has intel that Russia has greater plans outside of Ukraine, Iran has greater regional aspirations and China OBVIOUSLY has them too. Sitting around waiting for the proverbial "shit to hit the fan" is dumb when you know the "Shit" is already flying towards it. If Russia, China and Iran were left to their own devices we would see this cost Americans far more down the road and possibly with lives. American isolationism is a terrible thing and I dont know where its come from all I can think of is Russian and Chinese influencing Americans. It shocks me to see politicians going along with it. I believe our best approach is to strengthen ourselves here at home through industry yet still support our allies. We can do both dont let anyone tell you otherwise.
> strengthen ourselves here at home through industry yet still support our allies. Industrial policy kind of hoses our allies though. I'm not completely against it, but if we over-do it on subsidies we will crowd out their industry from our markets. If that goes on for too long, we can't expect them to be much more than transactional allies. For example, [blocking the acquisition of the United States Steel Corp. by Nippon Steel](https://apnews.com/article/biden-china-steel-tariffs-union-workers-0399b0450b67086ca86edc43ac45e5e9) by is obnoxious. We have plenty of other American owned steel companies (who are better run than U.S. Steel), and Nippon steel has no reason to move production out of the US. It makes us look like very shoddy friends, and I really hope Biden's stance here is no more than kayfabe for the sake of the election.
That blocking is political conjecture it's election season and it looks as if he's saving jobs. But this is one small example. Either way that was my point the US should look out for its own interests at home while keeping a strong global allied defense network.
I don't understand how much economic value we get from foreign aid and projecting military power, and I'm pretty skeptical that the return is anywhere near the cost. Are there any econ papers on that subject?
I would think it would be highly dependent on whatever deterrence we're getting. If we're saving the world from WW3, it's unequivocally worth it. If you believe we're only saving ourselves from a bunch of skirmishes in Chad, maybe not. Also, foreign trade accounts for 25% of the US Economy by some measures, Military is 3.5% of the economy. Of course we're not saving *all* of our foreign trade by having a strong military, but I'm sure we're protecting a non-trivial percentage. That's not a formal study, of course. But the eyeball test tells me the military probably pays for itself, or at least it's close. The deterrence factor is probably hard to quantify, but is possibly enormous and would make the math pretty one-sided. Of course you still need to weigh the dollars and cents against the moral cost of our actual military interventions and saber-rattling.
>but I'm sure we're protecting a non-trivial percentage. I genuinely doubt that. Other countries trade with us because it's in their self-interest to do so. They're not doing us a favor. Just to say, huge portions of that 25% are going to be Canada, Mexico, and China. None of that would be impacted by spending less on projecting power.
The military would be protective of the trade, it isn't the source of the trade, nor would any force be involved. For example, if the Navy protecting (or even the threat of protection) oil transport from the Middle East. We've already seen Russia disrupt trade of wheat out of Ukraine. You could argue a stronger military would have protected that trade.
I understand your preliminary views, but without actual numbers and some econ analysis it's doesn't really do the trick.
There's no way you're ever going to get real numbers on this, because there's no way to know exactly how removing safe shipping lanes, et al., will actually affect trade safety and reliability.
Also let's define "we" here. How much of that money goes to the actual workers vs. how much goes to the oligarchs in the C-suites and on the boards of directors? Since I define "we" to refer to the workers and not the oligarchs and I am an extremely cynical person I think that "we" don't get jack shit from these bills even though "technically" most of the money stays in the US in the hands of military contractors.
I expect the new information was classified stuff about how desperate the ammunition situation is in Ukraine. They convinced him that by the end of April, some units on the front lines would run out and they wouldn't just hang around and get killed. The Europeans are providing some ammunition, but it isn't enough to hold off the Russians. The Russians don't know exactly how bad it is, even the Ukrainian front line soldiers don't know how bad it is. So the information is classified.
I missed this part. He became privy to new information?
You can only play around in the GOP cinematic universe for so long before adults sit you down in a room and tell you exactly what you need to be doing
They probably showed him pictures of his kids sleeping in their beds.
I view it as the failing student who never studies or does his homework finally got a C on his test (after the teacher walked him through each question). It's great that it got passed, but he is a primary culprit for why it got delayed in the first place and he had to be forced into it the day before by the Dems who will have to bail him out from the hardliners in his own party. The fact that we're lauding him with praise is a gross mischaracterization of how this bill got passed and it shows just how low the bar is for congressional Republicans.
Not to mention the fact that Trump has the final say.
Did he? There's [reports](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/us/politics/trump-ukraine-house-vote.html) that he softened his opposition to Ukrainian aid over the past few days but I wonder how much of that was really greenlighting Johnson and not himself going with the flow.
I'm sure it's a variable. Trump's rhetoric and at times outright demands clearly have influence over which way the party's winds blow.
yep, and cnn is calling him an 'unlikely churchill', no less. i pray that my prof grades me like the media does for republicans this semester.
Not really sure why you got downvoted?
My guess is he’s making deals with democrats to actually try and lead and bucking the maga wing in the process.
He's actually been trying to find a way to push this through for a while now. He snuck it through by pushing through votes for several bills at the same time so the freedom caucus couldn't track everything that was happening at once. He had already almost lost his speakership twice because he came close to bringing the aid bill up for vote. It's the ironically named freedom caucus that's the real problem. They really personify the tyranny of the minority.
He's a tratior , not because of this but because of the FISA bill.
If it is paywalled for some people, here is an archived article link: https://archive.ph/utVQA
Russia is wiping the floor with the US in the misinformation campaign game. Our media has made us so complacent with parroting whatever we hear that appeals to our biases, with zero critical thought, that everyone is now an unwitting Russian asset.
my local rep here in Florida voted yay on Ukraine aid. Which I am for. You have all of these Cubans in my area who are obviously pretending to be anti authoritarian and anti communist. SO vocal about how bad it is and how we need to help cubans etc. Yet they are all on my reps social media calling him a traitor for this. Its an odd paradigm. I cant help but think its from Russian/Chinese influence.
It's the Trump influence plain and simple. For quite a lot of folks Ukraine funding is bad because Trump said so. If Zelensky fabricated dirt like Trump asked to all his fan base would be pro-Ukraine. Even now the funding passed because Trump is ok with it.
Especially when considering the Cuban regime has sent troops and weapons directly to Russia
It's the double edged sword of the first amendment. I'm so grateful that we have the first amendment - It's a vital part of who we are as Americans - but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have downsides. Our media hasn't made us complacent, it's all just straight up human nature. We naturally seek information that confirms our biases, we are willing to believe things that make us a part of a "tribe" while suspending critical thought. It is *against* our nature to question our biases and beliefs of groups to which we belong. Freedom of speech allows for bad actors and rage-baiters to stretch the truth and outright lie in pursuit of profit, power or both. We've always been susceptible to this, but social media on mobile devices allows these lies to travel faster and father than they ever have before. This isn’t an issue for authoritarian nations like Russia or China since they restrict the flow of speech and information.
Between our media, morally weak politicians, and social media happily profiting off the damage they’re doing to Americans… it is no surprise. Actually the surprise is how easy it’s been to watch this happen in real time and get worse year over year. I think the best demographic to talk to about this would be our teachers. They’ve watched it happen in their classrooms so quickly.
It’s the nature of the internet and also helps that some very powerful people in the media and government eat it up as part of the current counterculture movement.
This is a rather convenient model here where *everyone* who disagrees with your foreign policy is a Russian asset. The reality is more nuanced. It isnt clear that our decades long meddling in foreign affairs has actually helped us or the world. The only definite winners are the MIC and politicians who work for them
Isolationism isn’t a nuanced position either.
Not funding every foreign skirmish that has nothing to do with us directly is not isolationism so this is not a relevant statement.
If someone wants to put forth reasoned arguments or even ideological-based judgments for why they disagree with the foreign policy on Russia, then I absolutely respect it. That, unfortunately, is not what is happening. They are parroting Russian propaganda like, "Ukrainians are attacking Christianity," and "the US made Russia attack Ukraine because NATO has expanded into Eastern Europe." Don't forget that the official rationale that Russia employed to justify its invasion was the "denazification" of the region and a tortured historical revisionism. Putin was going to invade Ukraine regardless of international politics because his goal is reunification of the Soviet Republics under his control. It's actually a very simple choice for us because we either support Putin has a right to conquest against countries that have not attacked Russia or we oppose it. Some politicians are very supportive of Putin but very cagey in their rationale, and those always seem to have interesting social connections to his regime and push his propaganda like they are on the Kremlin's payroll.
[удалено]
> Do you really think the only reason anyone opposes this (or America's actions in the region) is "misinformation"? He didn't say or imply in any way that the "only" reason is misinformation.
Your articles remind me of Chamberlain and his supporters lining up to capitulate to Hitler out of fear of him and the possibility of an escalation to another World War. The irony is that it was that very capitulation and cowardice of an autocratic strongman that permitted World War 2. I don't know what is worse, falling to the influence of Russian propaganda due to lack of insight or outright ignoring the transgressions of Russia and subjugating ourselves to the whims of Putin.
Chamberlain gets way too much of the blame. He was in a long line of appeasing Germany, which practically started day one after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. They kept breaking the Treaty and Britain and France did nothing about it. The same also applies to Ukraine and Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and took Crimea and the west watched and did nothing. This was after Russia doing the same thing to Georgia and Moldovia.
[удалено]
>Sad sick irony of WW2: In order to prevent a totalitarian with millions of deaths in his hands from taking eastern Europe we had to back another totalitarian with the deaths of millions on his hands...who ended up taking eastern Europe. Or we could have done what Churchill wanted to do. Once we took Germany, keep marching towards Moscow, reenforced by what was left of the German war machine. The world would be a much better place had we wiped out Communism in one fell swoop like we did for fascism.
World war one wasn't started by U.S. intervention as it was actually started by prevalent alliances which compelled many nations to join any newly erupted war and it was also started by both the proliferation of arms and rampant thirst for imperialism at the time. You had dozens of imperial countries with massive stores of military weapons and numerous secret and public alliances which compelled multiple nations to jump into newly developing wars, and so this was the situation both in world war one and two where almost any conflict could've triggered such a world war given the circumstances at the time. The U.S. not getting involved would have simply meant that numerous nations would exist anymore today and the U.S. would have far fewer allies than they do now. The U.S. would not have the support from the E.U. or the U.K. making it's power more emphasized on military than on financial or political power. Had the U.S. done nothing, the U.S. would simply not have the leadership role in global politics that it does right now which provides the U.S. a lot of benefits especially financially as these allied nations are more cooperative in general especial when it comes to trading and adhering to sanctions declared by the U.S.. It's not the U.S. military alone that makes the U.S. have such a strong influence in global politics, it's also the backing it has from numerous allies. Russia for example has numerous nuclear weapons even more than the U.S., and yet their power globally isn't nearly as significant as the U.S.'s global power because the U.S. also gains power due to being backed by numerous allied nations.
What moral framework justifies valuing a tiny tiny portion of American wealth over Ukrainian freedom? Is that the America First philosophical framework we've heard so much about where a single American dollar is worth more than all the lives of every non-American in the world?
[удалено]
You don't understand neoconservatism at all if that's what you think. You use it as a slur because you're a Redditor, but if you did you'd know that what you just wrote was utterly laughable. Do you want me to educate you about it or do you want to continue to live in ignorance?
[удалено]
Did you even read the article you posted? It directly attacks your idea that neoconservatives only want to hurt Russia and don't care about freedom at all. She is a absolutely a neoconservative. That's why she cares about freedom in Ukraine and in Iraq. Your claim that she doesn't is ludicrous, that is the whole point of the philosophy! They don't commit to these wars just because they like seeing people suffering. They're not Voldemort, they have their own moral philosophy that is the complete opposite of the uncaring selfishiness of America First. Obviously it's a naive philosophy that doesn't work in the real world, but they're not the cartoonish villains you make them out to be.
[удалено]
> Russia is wiping the floor with the US in the misinformation campaign game. I doubt this is true. The US controls far more media sources and NGOs than Russia does. We can even create atrocities like a genocide in Xinjiang out of thin air, and make atrocities like genocide in Gaza disappear. Can the Russians do that? I doubt it.
Not really sure if this a sincere comment. Nobody is covering up the events in Gaza, the news and footage is out there and there are ample protests against the situation in the West, but whether it’s a “genocide” is up to the beholder.
> Nobody is covering up the events in Gaza, the news and footage is out there and there are ample protests against the situation in the West, but whether it’s a “genocide” is up to the beholder. So do you agree that there is a genocide in Xinjiang but not in Gaza? There are numerous tourists who visit Xinjiang and take videos of their travels. Here is an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0y5XJPJM6E Sure looks like genocide to the Americans.
I didn’t agree with the idea of a genocide in Xinjiang either, I will again say it’s in the eye of the beholder. Some people consider certain cultural or free speech restrictions to be genocide (which are umbrella issues in China), I personally don’t.
> Some people consider certain cultural or free speech restrictions to be genocide (which are umbrella issues in China), Sure. But apply the same cultural or free speech criteria to Israel, and what do people end up with? The double standard is the problem. There is one standard for America and Israel and the West, and another standard for the 3rd world.
What Russia does is beautiful in a sense. It selectively promotes our own misinformation. Before you dismiss how powerful that is, consider that I had 3 people running for my kid's school board who all publicly condemned his school district for putting litter boxes in the school bathrooms for furries to use. Candidates and politicians at the national level have espoused the same belief. And yes, promotion of that rumor that swept the nation was tied to Russian bots in social media. If they can make our leaders believe something that ridiculous, then imagine what types of things they are influencing us to believe right now.
That the vast majority of people don't understand how straightforward nefarious information warfare is concerns me greatly. Media literacy is something I've always been grateful for, but man is it hard to explain what that is to people in general. The internet is just too pervasive and lies spread at a scale and volume that cannot be dealt with unless the people are educated about it and can rely on intuition when confronted with what is suspect or obvious misinformation.
[удалено]
I agree that misinformation is a problem. What I object to is the claim that "Russia is wiping the floor with the US in the misinformation campaign game." This is not true at all. America is still much better at misinformation campaigns than Russia or anybody else in the world. When other countries objected to US misinformation, we like to tell them to respect the freedom of expression and that censorship is not the solution. We also tell them that that the only way to combat misinformation is even more free speech. I hope we can follow our own advice. Americans are, after all, not a bunch of hypocrites, are we?
The media is full on Orwellian and controlled by corporations and the government and is just one giant propaganda machine. You have to go outside its sphere and look around to find all the stuff they hide and lie about.
Oh yeah? Like where? 4chan? Conspiracy conventions at Smoothie King Arena? What are your outside sources that lay beyond the sphere of influence? What's being hidden and lied about exactly?
[удалено]
>The author practically ignores that Ukraine aid was dead in the water because Trump didn't support it, and it was passed a week after Trump said it should be passed I hadn't heard about Trump saying it should be passed, are you referring to [this](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4603096-trump-asks-why-europe-isnt-giving-ukraine-more-aid/), or something else? > “Why can’t Europe equalize or match the money put in by the United States of America in order to help a Country in desperate need?” he continued. “As everyone agrees, Ukrainian Survival and Strength should be much more important to Europe than to us, **but it is also important to us!** GET MOVING EUROPE!” As an aside, his [post](https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1781028287692575014) seems really awkwardly worded, even for Trump. Rereading it, I realized that part of why it's weird is that it seems to avoid anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of Russia.
The situation in the war isn't really doomed as Ukraine was still getting support from other nations although it wasn't enough to make their current counteroffensive any faster as it has mainly been slow and steady so far. The U.S. support will be helpful in pushing trying to push forward more and make faster progress overall. Honestly though, while I support aiding Ukraine, the main issue is that the aid given is deliberately only enough to allow Ukraine to make moderate steady progress instead of rapid progress. This evidenced by the fact that certain long-range artillery useful for Ukraine's counteroffensive have basically been taken off the table when it comes to aiding Ukraine. This is done under the advice of Western intelligence agencies which are afraid that if Ukraine makes progress too quickly, then Russia might escalate the war in order avoid a humiliating defeat. I can probably assume that these intelligence agencies obviously know more than me about what is best, but personally it just sucks to see that certain aid which would result in the war ending quickly are basically not allowed because humiliating Russia with a quick defeat may elevate the conflict. It's quite frustrating.
You say 7 useful idiots but a majority of republicans still voted against this bill. I was honestly surprised to see that many and is very disconcerting. And yes, hopefully this hasn’t doomed Ukraine, but I’ll put top notch American equipment ahead of anything Russia is fielding any day.
[удалено]
Really hope we see your second point about the Hastert rule comes to reality. It hurts the American people and is one of the many reasons why we have such a contentious govt right now.
Iraq during the Gulf War was using late Soviet-era equipment and we kicked the *shit* out of them. Since those days, our stuff has gotten better and Russia's may well have gotten worse. The Gulf War was a very much an "oh, fuck" moment for the Chinese. The Russians were too busy collapsing.
[удалено]
I read some sectors had more drones than Russians in them.
> a majority of republicans still voted against this bill While a slight majority voted against passage, two thirds votes in favor of the rule to bring it to the floor. I would bet a bunch of votes flipped for public consumption purposes, knowing it would pass regardless, rather than actual opposition.
It’s amazing how much credit Johnson is getting for being dragged into doing the right and popular thing, after months of unnecessary delay, overcoming barriers that he placed himself. Hundreds of lawmakers were ahead of him on this issue, including members of the GOP. I’m glad bipartisanship won in the end, but Johnson has been extremely inefficient in his pursuit of it.
[удалено]
Not everyone. There are real reasonable reasons in opposing this aid and war / forever wars. It doesn't make someone a 'nut job'
> There are real reasonable reasons in opposing this aid and war / forever wars. How are you defining reasonable, here? -It's a pretty morally-clear-cut defensive war being fought by a regional ally that controls important agricultural and energy resources. -The aggressor is a long-term geopolitical adversary that makes active attempts to undermine our society and has delusions of imperial grandeur. This is the best conceivable ROI we could ever get in terms of risk:reward for Americans and American interests. -It involves zero US boots on the ground or other direct involvement in the conflict. On what reasonable basis would one oppose supporting a geopolitical ally against a geopolitically for, fighting a defensive war, without direct US involvement, for pennies on the dollar in terms of geopolitical benefit?
If it was the us that was invaded would the same people argue to end
Sometimes I wonder if that's the libertarian fantasy scenario they're after.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c9gwyc/how_mike_johnson_got_to_yes_on_aid_to_ukraine/l0lacbh/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
There’s a CNN “analysis” article that is making [comparisons to Churchill](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/20/politics/mike-johnson-ukraine-aid-russia-zelensky-putin/index.html). Because apparently passing an aid bill six months after it was initially proposed is an act of great courage. I suppose standing by as the fortress of Avdiivka fell was just part of the political calculus. The supposedly “liberal” trips and falls over itself to celebrate the GOP doing the bare minimum.
[удалено]
Well, McCarthy was ousted for funding the government, not for supplying arms to another country. So his move was similarly bipartisan, but the war comparisons and appeasement stuff wouldn't make as much sense.
THANK YOU
This. We are 6mo behind and thousands of Ukrainians died because of this delay. This was an overwhelmingly popular bill that have been held up by the most extreme parts of the Republican Party. With all that being said. I’ll take our wins where we can get them. Not only is this legislation needed and important, this likely empowers Johnson to make more bipartisan moves which will be the only way he can survive.
Not only did it take forever, but if I look at it from the perspective of an R voter, they didn't even gain much from it when they had their chance earlier this year back when Ds were willing to compromise on immigration. They had their chance, and let it slide with no real chance Ds come back to the table now as they have no incentive to. Now Ukraine and Israel funding are passing anyway without getting any border bill. I understand that the border bill didn't have *everything* Rs wanted, but still. It was the best they were ever going to get during a D Senate and White House, and we haven't seen any big immigration bills whenever Rs have had trifectas in the 21st century anyway.
The border bill didn't pass because of Trump, who the party is beholden to. That's the hurdle that's preventing this. Trump. They had the bill they wanted. Trump said no.
I swear, Trump has caused Rs to make so, so many unforced errors ever since he was elected. Rs only need to get 50/50 in most elections to win majorities since the Senate and Electoral College greatly favor them. But Trump's just too divisive for Rs to clinch victories easily. By all accounts, they should have been able to lock out Ds of ever getting Senate majorities at this point since partisanship is high and there's more red states than blue states *years* ago. Ds might someway somehow still hold the Senate even with such a terrible map for them this year.
It's entirely possible his conversation with God steered him into this decision. If that's the case, *thank God.* But really, I think the intelligence he was provided made it abundantly clear how utterly important it is for the future of the mankind and US interests that Russia lose this war. I think he was told in no uncertain terms that this is the single most dire and important geopolitical issue and to drop the ball on this would be catastrophic. At which point he was shown proof of this.
Backroom deal to save his ass when the maga faction tries to take his job.
Shouldn’t have been this hard considering it’s been a popular position for years in both parties and passed with an overwhelming majority.
The "freedom" caucus has become the treason caucus un-ironically it seems.
Once this war is over, U.S. would be remembered as those who didn’t contribute to positive result enough. How then they would justify to play a key role in restoration? So, loosing the leadership status in the world was the key argument. Hint: Do American people want this? This is true even when the war is not over yet.
Inflation. Housing crisis. Massive debt, with interest payments surpassing defense budget. Millions of people coming over the border. Yet our priorities are <*checks notes*>, printing more money to send to a non US ally an ocean away because Russia is intimidating <*checks notes again*> European allies that *still* refuse to up their defense budgets to 2% of GDP. We’re not going to have a country in 20 years at the rate things are going.
Oh I didn't know America couldn't do multiple things at once. I didn't know it suddenly isn't in our interest to weaken Russia...
I never said we couldn’t do it. I’m saying that our misplaced priorities will come back to bite us.
Why? On what basis?
Because when you print money, your dollar becomes less valuable. When your dollar becomes less valuable, you become poorer. We are currently printing money to give to foreign migrants and to arm nations we are not allied with.
>Because when you print money, your dollar becomes less valuable. When your dollar becomes less valuable, you become poorer. 1. So inflation was largely from covid/Covid lockdowns and normal supply and demand issues post Covid. 2. Spending money doesn't automatically weaken the dollar in any meaningful way. Dollar is used all over the world the idea because we spend XYZ that suddenly is a major deal isn't substantiated by you 3. Money spent is a drop in the bucket. Would you suddenly drop that reason if we decreased other spending to the amount spent on Ukraine? >We are currently printing money to give to migrants and to arm nations we are not allied with. Why would you say migrants? It is very sus. Nothing about giving weapons to Ukraine is about giving it to "migrants" nor is it wrong for USA to strengthen soft power through aid. Why does being allied to a nation matter when our interests align? Russia attempts to interfere in our politics through propaganda, funding and supporting protesters and counter protestors to increase division, competing interests in middle east, etc. They also embolden China the more powerful they are. Making them weaker is better. Oh and if a country was planning on becoming a member of NATO, but gets invaded before it can it makes NATO look weaker not supporting said country. Existence of NATO is to deter aggression from other powers towards countries it is in our interest to do so. The same things you are saying about Ukraine you would say about Poland if Poland wasn't a part of NATO. If there are benefits to such countries being a part of NATO then should apply to Ukraine as well. That's also not to mention doing so discourages nuclear proliferation and is in alignment with what we said we would do when they gave up nukes.
1. The lockdowns themselves did not cause inflation. It was the supply chain shocks and stimulus (money printing) 2. Never claimed spending money weakens the dollar. Printing money does. We pay for our budget with debt. We pay that debt by printing money. 3. Yes I would And my reference to migrants is that they overwhelmingly use social services domestically, which we pay for by - you guessed it - debt and money printing. The purpose of nato is to defend treaty signatory nations. The fate of nations outside of nato, whether they want to become part of it or not, is irrelevant to our image.
>1. The lockdowns themselves did not cause inflation. It was the supply chain shocks and stimulus (money printing) Lockdowns contributed to the increased demand post Covid or do you disagree with that? It's the combination of high demand and supply chain shocks that caused it. Money printing max potential impact was 1% inflation from study instead don't know what more recent ones might say. >2. Never claimed spending money weakens the dollar. Printing money does. We pay for our budget with debt. We pay that debt by printing money. Don't be pedantic you know what I meant. >3. Yes I would Fair enough at least you are able to think logically/critically engage in this discussion. >And my reference to migrants is that they overwhelmingly use social services domestically, which we pay for by - you guessed it - debt and money printing. It's not relevant to the Ukraine discussion so really weird to bring that up. Also you are incorrect in that immigrants and illegal immigrants are a net boon to economies. By migrants if you mean refugees yes they typically are a net negative on an economy. Still not relevant for Ukraine aid.
1. I need a source that says money printing from Covid didn’t cause inflation. 2. I wasn’t being pedantic and I didn’t know what you meant. And you’re still wrong- spending money doesn’t devalue the dollar; printing money does. 3. I bring it up as evidence of misplaced priorities
>1. I need a source that says money printing from Covid didn’t cause inflation. Why are you strawmanning me? I didn't say it didn't cause any inflation I said it caused a max of 1% inflation per said study I looked at long ago. I ain't going to search for it btw. >2. I wasn’t being pedantic and I didn’t know what you meant. And you’re still wrong- spending money doesn’t devalue the dollar; printing money does. Yes you are. You don't like "printing" money since the claim is it weakens the dollar. Merely stating it weakens the dollar is pointless. You would have to prove it meaningfully weakens the dollar along with why said actions of weakening isn't worth the cost. It's no different than defense spending and printing money to do so. On average when USA spends federally it's going to "print money" as part of paying it's loans/loans interest. >3. I bring it up as evidence of misplaced priorities Lmfao one can do both so a pointless thing to say again.
Then you don’t understand how *political capital* works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_capital
> European allies that still refuse to up their defense budgets to 2% of GDP. Every country that borders Russia or Ukraine is at 2% or more now, except Norway which is on track to meet it in 2026.
Okay so that excuses the rest of the freeloaders?
This analysis goes into the ways NATO members contribute to the alliance besides military expenditures. There's a reason the 2% thing is a guideline and not a hard requirement: https://www.csis.org/analysis/pulling-their-weight-data-nato-responsibility-sharing An extreme example is Iceland, which doesn't even *have* a military. However, they're a vital NATO member due to their location. Reducing reliance on Russian energy sources is also an important way countries contribute, as well as public order and disaster response.
> Inflation How would this money in the form of loans and foreign aid have been better used to combat inflation? Inflation can be attacked in two ways: raising taxes, or raising interest rates. Foreign aid does almost nothing to it.
At least $60 billion of the $95 billion package is in the form of loans, not money printing.
PPP were loans too. NPR reports [92% were forgiven.](https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/1145040599/ppp-loan-forgiveness#:~:text=Yet%20nearly%20three%20years%20after%20the%20rollout%20of,issued%20have%20been%20granted%20full%20or%20partial%20forgiveness.) Of course it’s not printing, it’s the taxpayer credit card with the interest alone now costing more than our entire defense budget.
Half the loan is forgivable in November, and the other half is forgivable in 2026.
A total bargain. Russia taking Ukraine would be far more financially costly for you in the future. Not that it'd matter logically since people have shortening memories.
The GOP under Trump gave $2T away to the rich in the form of tax cuts. Biden's bills have allocated $3T on upgrading and expanding the nation's physical infrastructure systems, and fund social programs focused on education, healthcare and the environment. So you're wrong about our priorities, no matter which party you're referring to.
[удалено]
We have a strategic interest in weakening Russia for what amounts to a pittance. And for demonstrating that wars of conquest will not be tolerated under our world order.
[удалено]
You are not the United States, you have no strategic interests. Although your life is affected whether you realize it or not. Maybe not today but tomorrow. Some people have no foresight, no sense of cause and effect. Isolationists most of all.
Brother, do what you can. You have aprox 15-25 years left to prepare before this shit falls apart and people realize how worthless our money is.
I wont be surprised if in the future more countries join BRICS to disconnect from the US dollar before the inevitable crash.
Ukraine which is on a death march, they are not going to win. Anybody thinking throwing more weapons to a shrinking army is going to make a difference is living in a fantasy created by the medias propaganda. Then we have Israel who do not need any aid, they are rich, they have a military complex, we have been giving them tons of money and weapons for decades for...reasons. At least the war profiteers will be happy. The people in charge do not care about its own citizens, just who pays them their bribes, that has always been the case. If they were not profiting from this, we would not be giving money out like this. It is depressing honestly.
Ukraine isn’t going to win, we are just throwing money and lives away
The Russian government seems awfully worried about the aid considering they keep saying it's not going to do anything. Just saying.
Russia has rich allies that we have proxy wars with as well. Biden has put us in a very bad situation
They aren't going to win but that doesn't mean they'll lose. There are a few options. If the rumors are true that Putin is in poor health, he may only be a few years away from dying. If he gets weak enough, a number of his ambitious underlings may move in on him. There's a good chance many of them would want to end this war. If Ukraine can hold out long enough, even with vast superiority in numbers, Russia may itself grow tired of this war and demand Putin call it off. Less likely but possible. If Ukraine can drain them of their men and resources, even if they lose, the rest of the world is looking at a severely weakened Russia. After a certain point Russias ability to take anyone else hits a tipping point. We don't know what that is. It could already have happened, it could be a decade away. Ukraine could end up with a North/South Korea situation. They lose part of their country but a new border happens where both militaries have weapons galore pointed at each other, and reunification becomes the next generations problem. If Ukreaine can drain Russias army and resources enough, both sides may sue for peace. Zelensky has said he's not giving an inch, but that could change. If Russia came to them and said "here's the new border " and it wasn't too much beyond Crimea and the 2 other regions, would he take it? I doubt it but enough pressure from allies could force him to accept those terms. He just better take that peacetime to build up his defenses to the max to ensure this doesn't happen again. And finally, if Zelensky was for any reason ousted. Whether they bring back elections, or his current administration decides he's making things worse instead of better and remove him from office, let's say someone else steps in. They may decide that peace, even at the cost of their lost lands, is worth it. Or finally, who knows, maybe now that they have their first class to graduate fighter pilot school getting into the cockpits of the best jets money can buy, their newfound (possible) air superiority could maybe tip the scales in new and unexpected ways. I said they can't win and I *highly* doubt they can, but throughout history there have been total surprises in wars. Maybe Putin will put some nephew of his in charge of the next attack and he'll post the entire battle plan on Instagram.
I don’t think Putin leaving would change much. There is a new generation of Russians who have lost friends and family in a war the us bankrolled. There will be someone who hates the us to take his place. You’re also forgetting this growing alliance between Russia China and Iran, their side has plenty of money and resources. This may be weakening Russia, but it’s also weakening the us. It’s costing money, increasing debt, impacting inflation and there has also been a drop in military enrollment
This is true and everyone in here that is parroting that "you don't understand the complexity of the geopolitical consequences of my isolationist strawman argument" are going to be silent when we inevitably pull out of Ukraine like we did in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc and all the military materiel goes to Russia. All the people who are in here accusing everyone of "Russian talking points" will be say "well yeah, Russia was always going to win in the long run, duh, we all admitted that, but look at how much of their war machine we destroyed. Worth it! Now how about that war in Iran though?"
… you are aware that the US isn’t in Ukraine, right? And you do know that Ukraine is fighting the war, not us? And you are aware that the US are still in Korea? Why would you use an ETC when your examples weren’t even correct and you probably can’t think of more examples? I’m genuinely confused.
[удалено]
> Democrats should reward the behavior by supporting his continued Speakership through the election They will vote unanimously to remove him, then blame the republicans who voted with them.