After a brief moment of sanity courtesy of Sen. Rand Paul...

Senate Advances $40 Billion Ukraine Bill, Overruling Sen. Rand Paul’s Objections
By Joseph Lord
May 17, 2022

The Senate on May 16 decided in a bipartisan vote to advance a $40 billion military aid package to Ukraine, invoking cloture on debate over the objections of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

The 80–11 vote included the support of vast swaths of both parties; 11 Republicans voted against invoking cloture. The bill will now await a final vote in the Senate, which may come as early as May 18.

In comments on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) decried Paul’s effort last week to block the legislation.

“Senator Paul’s obstruction of Ukraine funding is unacceptable, and only serves to strengthen Putin’s hand in the long run,” Schumer said.

“I would urge the senator from Kentucky to reconsider his objection,” Senate president pro tempore Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said later.

The bill, the latest in a series of billion-dollar aid packages to the European nation, was blocked by Paul on May 11, even though House and Senate leaders were unanimous in their agreement to proceed with passing the package.

Paul refused to advance the bill until changes were made to the legislation that would ensure an inspector general could monitor exactly how the billions of dollars were being spent. Ultimately, the Senate invoked cloture without making any changes to the final draft of the bill.

“My oath of office is to the U.S. Constitution, not to any foreign nation, and no matter how sympathetic the cause, my oath of office is to the national security of the United States of America,” Paul said on the Senate floor on May 12.

“We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy. … Gasoline alone is up 48 percent, and energy prices are up 32 percent over the last year. Food prices have increased by nearly 9 percent. Used vehicle prices are up 35 percent for the year, and new vehicle prices have increased 12 percent or more,” he continued.

Paul noted that inflation “doesn’t just come out of nowhere” while pointing to deficit spending, noting that the United States spent almost $5 trillion on “COVID-19 bailouts” which have led to sky-high inflation.

“Americans are feeling the pain, and Congress seems intent only on adding to that pain by shoveling more money out the door as fast as they can,” Paul said.

Following Paul’s successful effort to temporarily halt the bill, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised Ukrainian leaders during a weekend visit to Kyiv that the bill would still pass with the support of an “overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress.”

Paul’s lone objection to the bill in the Senate was only the latest in a series of complications that have stalled its progress.

President Joe Biden originally requested a much smaller aid package on April 28.

Biden’s request included $20.4 billion in military assistance along with $8.5 billion in economic assistance. The package also included $3 billion in humanitarian assistance to address food shortages around the globe. Ultimately, the bill would have cost American taxpayers about $33 billion.

“The cost of this fight is not cheap, but caving to aggression is going to be more costly if we allow it to happen,” Biden said during a live address on April 28. “We either back the Ukrainian people as they defend their country, or we stand by as the Russians continue their atrocities and aggression in Ukraine.”

Later, lawmakers added about $3.4 billion to the humanitarian and military aid components of the bill, but the legislation quickly got bogged down in partisan disputes.

Some Democrats hoped for the addition of about $10 billion in domestic COVID relief funding, which was opposed by Republicans, who cited billions of dollars of previously-allocated relief funds that had not been used.

On the other side, some Republicans pushed for an amendment to overturn Biden’s plan to end Title 42, a Trump-era COVID emergency policy allowing Border Patrol agents to turn back many of the illegal immigrants apprehended at the border.

Still, after a period of stalling, the $40 billion taxpayer-funded relief bill is expected to head to Biden’s desk by the end of the week.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...aign=TheLibertyDaily

Hey! Diogenes! Look over here. See Senator Rand Paul?

Somalia? Our only interest in Somalia should be in using it for bombing practice!
All the great folks in the "Horn of Africa" can go right ahead and kill each other off in grand style. No American blood or treasure for the shithole. Enough is enough.

Last declared war was World War II. Congress has ceded an important function to the executive branch because they are too limp dicked to really perform their role in government.

https://history.house.gov/Inst...elopment/War-Powers/

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making powers to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons,” a young first-term Congressman named Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1848 during America’s War with Mexico. “Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our [Constitutional] Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.”2

Turkey Blocks Sweden, Finland NATO Accession Talks; Issues List Of Demands

https://www.zerohedge.com/geop...-issues-list-demands

Turkey has issued its "list" of demands that must happen before it would accede to granting formal NATO membership to Scandinavian countries Finland and Sweden. This coming on the same day both countries handed in their formal applications. In a photo op with the Finnish and Swedish ambassadors, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg hailed the "historic moment".

But given that for days Turkey has voiced vehement denunciation of the move, calling the countries 'terror safe-havens' over their alleged support for the outlawed Kurdish PKK (also as Sweden is home to one of the largest Kurdish communities in Europe), Brussels is in for a long-haul of gridlock as there must be consensus among the 30-member states for new entry. Within hours after an application submission ceremony, FT is reporting Turkey has already blocked the planned initial accession talks with Sweden and Finland essential to processing the requests:

Turkey has blocked Nato’s initial decision to process requests by Finland and Sweden to join the military alliance, throwing into doubt the hopes for a quick accession of the two Nordic countries. Nato ambassadors met on Wednesday with the aim of opening accession talks on the same day that Finland and Sweden submitted their applications but Ankara’s opposition stopped any vote, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

The FT report continues: "The postponement raises doubt that Nato will be able to approve the first stage of Finland’s and Sweden’s applications within one or two weeks, as secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg indicated. It also sets the stage for several days of intense diplomacy between the US, Turkey, Finland and Sweden over the issue."

Meanwhile, three "senior Turkish officials" have issued to Bloomberg key actions that Finland and Sweden must implement if they hope to gain Ankara's approval. Despite their expressing that Turkey isn't seeking to negotiate beyond the scope of Finnish, Swedish issues - other elements looming in the background are coming into play, like the blocked F-35 deal which grabbed headlines over past years.

Turkey's foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu recently told a meeting of NATO diplomats that majority of Turkish citizens - which is the country that also happens to form NATO's second largest military - are adamantly opposed to Sweden and Finland's membership, given they host and give aid to PKK "terrorists".

Below is the list as summarized based on information in the Wednesday Bloomberg report...

1) Denounce the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and crack down on their activities in host countries

The senor officials told Bloomberg that not only must Helsinki and Stockholm take a public stance of denouncing the PKK as a 'terrorist organization' - but both governments must crackdown on PKK activities and those of its sympathizers domestically.

Likely also with the Syrian Kurdish YPG in mind, which enjoys support from Washington, Finland and Sweden must also denounce the PKK's "affiliates before being allowed to join the bloc," the senior officials said.

This has also included breaking reports of a demand for the countries to extradite identified 'terrorists' to Turkey...

2) Immediately lift arms export restrictions imposed in 2019

A number of EU countries, including Sweden and Finland, imposed arms export restrictions on Turkey due to its cross border military campaign against Syrian Kurdish militias - most especially the YPG, which Turkey's leaders see as but an extension of the PKK. However, the YPG has enjoyed the longtime backing of the West, with US troops having for years at this point trained them on the ground in northeast Syria, enraging Turkish leaders.

"Turkey also wants Sweden and Finland to put an end to arms-export restrictions they imposed on Turkey, along with several other European Union members, after its 2019 incursion into Syria to push the YPG back from the frontier," the officials were quoted in Bloomberg as saying.

3) Washington should restore Turkey's participation in F-35 program

Though not directly a demand of Finland and Sweden, the issue of Washington previously halting the F-35 program for Turkey still looms large.

"Turkey wants to be re-included in the F-35 advanced aircraft program, from which it was barred after it bought S-400 missile-defense systems from Russia," Bloomberg writes based on its Turkish government sources. "It also has an outstanding request to the US to purchase dozens of F-16s warplanes and upgrade kits for its existing fleet."

4) Lift sanctions related to Turkey's possession of Russian S-400s

As part of the Turkish wish-list, Bloomberg notes, "Moreover, Turkey wants the US to lift sanctions over its possession of the S-400 missiles."

This was closely related to the saga of the blocked F-35 deal, widely viewed as a humiliation for the Erdogan government, and which took US-Turkey relations to a low point under the Trump administration, despite the two leaders at the time being viewed as on very friendly terms.

* * *

Meanwhile, the issue of Turkey for many years having unsuccessfully sought EU membership while at the same time more recently having to stand by as enthusiastic talk emerges of 'fast-tracking' others (such as Ukraine) has without doubt added insult to injury...

Fuck Erdogan. If he wants to solve the F-35 debacle, all he has to do is cut a deal with the US - Erdogan donates his S-400 missiles to Ukraine in exchange for US help in getting western missiles to take their place. Voila! Problem solved.

As for the Kurds, they're no threat to NATO. I'm surprised we haven't heard more people who are opposed to US support for Ukraine insist that the Kurds are Turkey's problem and Turkey's problem alone.

Turkey shouldn't even be in NATO at this point, bunch of scheming scumbags who only look at the USA as a payday.

^^^^^^^^^^
I believe Oz is Turkish, but American born.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^^
I believe Oz is Turkish, but American born.

What does that have to do with Turkey trying to grift the US over potential new NATO members?

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^^
I believe Oz is Turkish, but American born.

So what, I’m Italian does that mean I’m just like Mussolini?

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^^
I believe Oz is Turkish, but American born.

I can't part the sea with a stick. But I can hear the ocean coming if I put my ear to the ground.

(but that might be the tinnitus)

My beef is with Erdogan and the turds who've supported his sheep-molesting ass. Ask around; you might be surprised by how many Turks (or ex-Turks) you meet here in the US who hate Erdogan and all he stands for.

Even the left leaning paper The Atlantic realizes this should end sooner rather than later. I don't agree with all they say, but it is an interesting change in the media's tone.

Ukraine’s Way Out

Strategic prudence argues in favor of pocketing successes rather than pressing the fight and running the tantamount risks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/id...ia-putin-end/629890/

About the author: Charles A. Kupchan is a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of Isolationism: A History of America's Efforts to Shield Itself from the World.

The war in Ukraine is entering a more dangerous phase. Even though Russia appears to have downsized its goals after Kyiv blunted Moscow’s initial invasion, the Kremlin is now determined to enlarge the chunk of eastern and southern Ukraine that it grabbed in 2014. Meanwhile, NATO allies are pouring in arms, providing intelligence, and savoring the prospect of a “victory” that entails expelling Russia from Ukraine.

With both sides doubling down, NATO must engage in a forthright dialogue with the Ukrainian government about its goals and how best to bring the bloodshed to a close sooner rather than later. Russia has already been dealt a decisive strategic defeat. Ukrainian forces have rebuffed the advance on Kyiv and retain control of most of the country; the West has hit Russia with severe economic sanctions; and NATO has reinforced its eastern flank, while Finland and Sweden now seek to join the alliance. For NATO and Ukraine alike, strategic prudence argues in favor of pocketing these successes rather than pressing the fight and running the tantamount risks.

So far, the United States and its allies have shied away from pushing Kyiv to limit its strategic objectives. NATO has instead focused on providing Ukraine the means to defend itself—more anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles, more drones, more artillery, more intelligence. The Biden administration legitimately argues that Ukrainians must decide their own war aims. It’s also true that Kyiv is fully justified, on both moral and legal grounds, to seek to restore Ukraine’s full territorial integrity by retaking Crimea and the section of the Donbas that Russia occupied in 2014.

But Kyiv’s right to fight for complete territorial sovereignty does not make doing so strategically wise. Nor should Ukraine’s remarkable success in repelling Russia’s initial advance be cause for overconfidence about the next phases of the conflict. Indeed, strategic pragmatism warrants a frank conversation between NATO and Ukraine about curbing Kyiv’s ambitions and settling for an outcome that falls short of “victory.”

Several considerations call for such restraint. First, the longer the war continues, the greater the death, destruction, and dislocation it will reap. Russia’s invasion has already taken tens of thousands of lives, forced some 12 million Ukrainians to flee their homes (about 6 million have left the country), and destroyed some $60 billion of Ukraine’s infrastructure. Sanctions against Russia and the war’s disruption to supply chains are fueling rising prices in many countries and could spawn a global food shortage.

Second is the risk of escalation. If Russian forces fare well in the east and the south, the Kremlin could eventually decide to enlarge its own war aims and seek to swallow more of Ukraine. Alternatively, if Russian forces falter in the coming weeks and Vladimir Putin faces a further defeat, he could well look to use weapons of mass destruction, or to trigger a wider conflict to change the course of the war. Accidental escalation is also a real risk, with Russia already carrying out strikes near NATO territory and Russian and NATO forces operating in close proximity.

Third, even though the West has demonstrated impressive unity in supporting Ukraine and standing up to Russian aggression, the West’s solidarity may wane over time. Inflation is spiking on both sides of the Atlantic, fueled in part by the knock-on effects of the war. Rising prices are weighing down President Joe Biden’s popularity—despite his strong handling of the war—and his earlier focus on improving the lot of working Americans has effectively been sidelined. Bipartisan cooperation on standing up to Putin could erode.

Differences are starting to emerge among transatlantic allies. The leaders of France, Germany, and Italy last week talked up the need for a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement. Meanwhile, Washington and London appear to be backing Ukraine’s intention to achieve, in the words of its foreign minister, “the liberation of occupied territories.”

Electoral outcomes since the war began do not bode well for the West’s collective staying power, either. Viktor Orbán, the self-proclaimed defender of “illiberal democracy,” won reelection in Hungary. He has so far blocked the European Union’s effort to impose an oil embargo on Russia. Although the centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron was reelected in France, the hard-right and pro-Russian candidate, Marine Le Pen, garnered more than 40 percent of the vote. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz initially outlined a bold shift in German foreign policy to counter Putin’s move into Ukraine. But Berlin has since wavered on following through, and the Scholz government has been weakened by a political setback in regional elections over the weekend.

In the U.S., buoyed by Donald Trump’s endorsement, J. D. Vance recently won a hotly contested Senate primary in Ohio. His views of the war in Ukraine are rather blunt: “I think it’s ridiculous that we are focused on this border in Ukraine. I got to be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.” Amid rampant inflation, the “America First” wing of the Republican Party is poised to surge in the November midterms.

Finally, the West needs to begin looking beyond the war to salvage a relationship with Russia that keeps the door open to a modicum of collaboration. Even if a new cold war is opening, dialogue will be even more important than it was during Cold War 1.0. In a more interdependent and globalized world, the West will need at least a measure of pragmatic cooperation with Moscow to tackle common challenges, such as negotiating arms control, arresting climate change, managing the cybersphere, and promoting global health. To that end, bringing the war to an expeditious close through a cease-fire and negotiated settlement is far preferable to either a war that drags on or a new frozen conflict that ends in a hostile stalemate.

Critics charge that any outcome short of total defeat would embolden Putin. Allowing him to claim victory by retaining control of even a small slice of Ukraine, the arguments run, would only encourage his next land grab. So, too, might China interpret any outcome shy of a rout of Russia as encouragement for testing the West’s readiness to defend Taiwan.

But Putin will remain a troublemaker no matter how this war ends. And he has already been dealt a setback more than sufficient to drive home the costs of further adventurism. The Russian military is reeling as the country’s economy shrinks. Ukrainians have soundly rejected any future that entails subjugation to Moscow’s sphere of influence. And Russian aggression has prompted previously neutral Finland and Sweden to head for membership in NATO, an alliance that has integrated more than a dozen countries (encompassing some 100 million people) that were once part of the Soviet bloc.

Putin’s back is up against the wall. Pushing him further is both unnecessary and unnecessarily risky. And China can hardly be interpreting the blowback against Russia—in particular, Russia’s detachment from the global economy—as anything but a stark warning against Beijing’s own expansionism.

Putin’s errant invasion of Ukraine has produced no winners, but one clear loser: Russia. Even as the West continues to provide Ukraine the means to defend itself, it’s time for the Atlantic democracies to turn their focus to bringing the war to an end.

I will not attempt to parse all of the ideas and arguments, but after a quick scan, I’m reminded that Hitler asked again and again why the British kept fighting when they could have had peace after being expelled from the Continent with just an agreement to stop the fighting. Had the British public known about the Germans’ efforts in that vein, it probably would have seemed like a very good question to many of them. Not only was the cause of the war, Poland’s security, evidently a completely dead issue with both Germany and the Soviet Union having carved it up, but why worry about France that had given up unilaterally? What is Britain getting out of continuing the fight other than bombing raids and starvation blockade?

Later a group of anti-Hitler conspirators hung their hats (for a time) on the belief that Stalin would agree to the end of that conflict with an agreement for both sides to just stop in place.

At the times such proposals were made or at least conceived, both Britain and the USSR were still running the risk of things not turning out as they hoped. Although it was completely unrealistic by then, even at the end of the war much of the Nazi leadership thought it was crazy that the western Allies were going to let the Soviets destroy and occupy part of Germany itself and sent feelers to that end: “Join us and we can stop the final spread and victory of Bolshevism.”

Even the Japanese who were so different from the Germans believed that if they just resisted and held on long enough the Americans would stop short of total defeat and occupation of the home islands.

I fully realize, of course, that the circumstances then and now are not the same, but as I’ve pointed out perhaps ad nauseum the similarities are striking, not least because of fundamental human characteristics.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I will not attempt to parse all of the ideas and arguments, but after a quick scan, I’m reminded that Hitler asked again and again why the British kept fighting when they could have had peace after being expelled from the Continent with just an agreement to stop the fighting. Later a group of anti-Hitler conspirators hung their hats (for a time) on the belief that Stalin would agree to the end of that conflict with an agreement for both sides to just stop in place. At the times such proposals were made or at least conceived, both Britain and the USSR were still running the risk of things not turning out as they hoped. Although it was completely unrealistic by then, even at the end of the war much of the Nazi leadership thought it was crazy that the western Allies were going to let the Soviets destroy and occupy part of Germany itself and sent feelers to that end: “Join us and we can stop the final spread and victory of Bolshevism.”

Even the Japanese who were so different from the Germans believed that if they just resisted and held on long enough the Americans would stop short of total defeat and occupation of the home islands.

I fully realize, of course, that the circumstances then and now are not the same, but as I’ve pointed out perhaps ad nauseum the similarities are striking, not least because of fundamental human characteristics.

Would Britain have continued the war if Germany possessed thousands of nuclear weapons? World War II was not fought the same as World War I or the Napoleonic war before it, because things change. We must adapt to the reality we are in. A world war today may result in the death of humanity.

Things may be similar, but they are also different.

Do you want to trust the fate of humanity to the wisdom of Joe Biden, Zelenski, Putin, or Boris Johnson?

Yes, of course things change.

What will not change, though, and as I have pointed out before here and to others, is that if Russia is successful, it will not stop having nuclear weapons. If that is the reason to capitulate now, why not later?

If history has demonstrated anything with stark clarity countless times at all levels from the nation to the neighborhood, it is that submission very seldom turns out well for the ones who submit to aggression.

It is of course not my authority or responsibility to decide what to do, but as has been asked here before, "What next?"

You can fight forever or give up once.

I am a Jew, a survivor, and not a victim.
Figure it out.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Yes, of course things change.

What will not change, though, and as I have pointed out before here and to others, that if Russia is successful, it will not stop having nuclear weapons. If that is the reason to capitulate now, why not later?

If history has demonstrated anything with stark clarity countless times at all levels from the nation to the neighborhood, it is that very seldom turns out well for the ones who submit to aggression.

It is of course not my authority or responsibility to decide what to do, but as has been asked here before, "What next?"

Putin has been the leader of Russia for 20 years, I think this has more to do than his reported desire to take over the world. If that had been his goal, he is getting a late start.

As in most things this situation has multiple reasons, and many blunders by multiple nations. And I will leave it at that.

Kennedy and Khrushchev were able to deescalate the Cuban missile crisis because they knew what the outcome would be if they didn't. One thing is for sure, if the wrong decision is made it will be very catastrophic.

Let's at least look on the bright side. This war is uniting new lovers who were once worlds apart. It's really quite beautiful.

Step one, adopt a Ukrainian refugee. Step two, ditch the wife and kids almost immediately. Step three, live happily ever after. Love is love after all.

*********

Father-of-two, 29, DUMPS his partner after falling for 22-year-old Ukrainian refugee who came to live with couple to escape the war 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...-Ukrainian-refugee-c

We can hope that Putin will die or be deposed, but as my retired infantry officer friend points out time and again, hope is not a strategy.

It is only my speculation, but I strongly suspect that if he does disappear anytime soon, whoever succeeds him would be more likely to decide that the invasion was a mistake and bring all their forces home if the Ukrainians are still fighting effectively than if they surrender and say, “Okay, you can have my leg. Just don’t eat the rest of me.” In the one situation the successor(s) would be under domestic pressure to end things and they could conceivably even make some domestic points by saying, “Yeah, that guy was a madman, and we’re going to put things right.” If the fighting is over, though, and a leg or arm has been given up to the stew pot, then they would have no reason to give it back.

And oh: I am still waiting for someone to explain how letting Russia have part (if not all) of Ukraine without a fight is going to remove a single nuclear weapon from its arsenal, or even that it will demonstrate to them how threats of nuclear war are ineffective in achieving its criminal aggressive goals and therefore they should not do that.
Hmm ...: Anyone?