US may end aid to Ukraine after midterms – Axios | RT

[phoenyx]

An article I found interesting from RT today. The Axios article it references is here:

No more "blank check": Ukraine aid under threat in Republican-controlled House

Even House Republicans who have been outspoken about supporting Ukraine say there has been a noticeable shift.

www.axios.com

I definitely hope it happens, but I think it's more likely that the U.S. will at best simply reduce their support for Ukraine if the Republicans take control of Congress in the midterms.

Here's the introduction to RT's article:
**
October 20, 2022

The extensive assistance provided by Washington to Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia may be cut if the Republican Party takes control of Congress in the midterm elections on November 8, Axios has reported.

Even the harshest critics of Vladimir Putin among the Republicans now acknowledge that there’s been a “noticeable shift away from what was once a broad bipartisan consensus” on providing aid to Kiev, the outlet reported on Wednesday.

It cited House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, who told Punchbowl News earlier this week: “I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won’t do it.” Ukraine might be important, but it can’t be the only thing on the agenda of the US administration, he insisted.
**

Full article:

US may end aid to Ukraine after midterms – Axios

US support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia may be reduced or halted if Republicans win control of Congress, Axios has reported

www.rt.com

 

[Quag]

Lets hope RT is wrong on this like they tend to be on pretty much everything else

 

[anatta]

Even the harshest critics of Vladimir Putin among the Republicans now acknowledge that there’s been a “noticeable shift away from what was once a broad bipartisan consensus” on providing aid to Kiev,

it's a slow turn of the worm- but the warmongers will never give up

 

[phoenyx]

Lets hope RT is wrong on this like they tend to be on pretty much everything else

The source wasn't RT, I just liked the title of their article more. The source was the American news site Axios:

Axios (website) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'll quote the start of Axio's article:

**
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) publicly confirmed Tuesday what many in Washington and Europe privately fear: a Republican-controlled House could shut off the spigot funding Ukraine's efforts to defend itself against Russia's invasion.

Why it matters: Unlike aggressive oversight hearings or political messaging bills, a Republican majority's approach to Ukraine would reverberate far beyond the Beltway. A reduction or halt in U.S. military aid would create a geopolitical earthquake with the potential to alter the trajectory of Russian President Vladimir Putin's war.

What's happening: Even House Republicans who have been outspoken about supporting Ukraine — including McCarthy, who this week compared Putin to Hitler — say there has been a noticeable shift away from what was once a broad bipartisan consensus.
**

Source:

No more "blank check": Ukraine aid under threat in Republican-controlled House

Even House Republicans who have been outspoken about supporting Ukraine say there has been a noticeable shift.

www.axios.com

 

[Quag]

The source wasn't RT, I just liked the title of their article more. The source was the American news site Axios:

Axios (website) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'll quote the start of Axio's article:

**
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) publicly confirmed Tuesday what many in Washington and Europe privately fear: a Republican-controlled House could shut off the spigot funding Ukraine's efforts to defend itself against Russia's invasion.

Why it matters: Unlike aggressive oversight hearings or political messaging bills, a Republican majority's approach to Ukraine would reverberate far beyond the Beltway. A reduction or halt in U.S. military aid would create a geopolitical earthquake with the potential to alter the trajectory of Russian President Vladimir Putin's war.

What's happening: Even House Republicans who have been outspoken about supporting Ukraine — including McCarthy, who this week compared Putin to Hitler — say there has been a noticeable shift away from what was once a broad bipartisan consensus.
**

Source:

No more "blank check": Ukraine aid under threat in Republican-controlled House

Even House Republicans who have been outspoken about supporting Ukraine say there has been a noticeable shift.

www.axios.com

Link takes you to RT
Again lets hope they are wrong.
Heck lets hope Putin is dragged out of the Kremlin and strung up by Russians before the midterms and end this stupid war

 

[phoenyx]

The source wasn't RT, I just liked the title of their article more. The source was the American news site Axios:

Axios (website) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'll quote the start of Axio's article:

**
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) publicly confirmed Tuesday what many in Washington and Europe privately fear: a Republican-controlled House could shut off the spigot funding Ukraine's efforts to defend itself against Russia's invasion.

Why it matters: Unlike aggressive oversight hearings or political messaging bills, a Republican majority's approach to Ukraine would reverberate far beyond the Beltway. A reduction or halt in U.S. military aid would create a geopolitical earthquake with the potential to alter the trajectory of Russian President Vladimir Putin's war.

What's happening: Even House Republicans who have been outspoken about supporting Ukraine — including McCarthy, who this week compared Putin to Hitler — say there has been a noticeable shift away from what was once a broad bipartisan consensus.
**

Source:

No more "blank check": Ukraine aid under threat in Republican-controlled House

Even House Republicans who have been outspoken about supporting Ukraine say there has been a noticeable shift.

www.axios.com

Link takes you to RT

I think I may have not been completely clear in what I meant. The text I quoted in the opening post was indeed from RT. But RT article's source was Axios. The quote in the post you just responded to is from Axios, as well as the linked article.

Again lets hope they are wrong.

We're clearly hoping for different things here, which is fine. We'll find out soon enough who wins the mid terms and whether anything changes in regards to the U.S. financing of Kyiv's war.

 

[Quag]

I think I may have not been completely clear in what I meant. The text I quoted in the opening post was indeed from RT. But RT article's source was Axios. The quote in the post you just responded to is from Axios, as well as the linked article.



We're clearly hoping for different things here, which is fine. We'll find out soon enough who wins the mid terms and whether anything changes in regards to the U.S. financing of Kyiv's war.

Why use RT it is trash use a decent link
Lets hope Putin is dead before the midterms
Best thing for the US, Ukraine and Russia

 

[BirdinHand]

No one is surprised to know that some GOP members favor Putin.

 

[anatta]

We're clearly hoping for different things here, which is fine. We'll find out soon enough who wins the mid terms and whether anything changes in regards to the U.S. financing of Kyiv's war.

Biden still drives the US war funding with his unlimited support no matter what.
Congress would have to stand upto the Zelensky-its. Much easier just to send Z the kitchen sink

 

[phoenyx]

Why use RT it is trash use a decent link

I don't see it that way. As I mentioned, I decided to use RT's article in the title of this thread because I thought the title was a better descriptor. Axios title suggested that ending U.S. financing of the Ukraine war was a bad thing, something I definitely don't agree with.

Lets hope Putin is dead before the midterms
Best thing for the US, Ukraine and Russia

I think that strongly depends on who succeeds him. I think Shawn Cochran, writing for War on the Rocks has a good article on this. Quoting from it:

**
October 10, 2022

[snip]

A wartime transfer of leadership in Russia could go in many different directions. Pundits have identified a host of potential successors, ranging from the outspoken hawk Dmitry Medvedev to Sergei Sobyanin, who has consistently sought to distance himself from Putin’s war in Ukraine. Some have even raised the possibility, even if slim, of imprisoned opposition leader Alexey Navalny replacing Putin. While individual differences certainly matter, the politics of blame associated with war termination does not discriminate: Any new leader who seeks to extricate Russia from Putin’s war likely will face tough domestic hurdles. Russia’s current domestic political environment, as characterized by an intense blame game pitting political versus military leadership, would be especially dangerous for Putin’s successor and disincentive any move to abandon Russia’s war aims in Ukraine and seek peace, at least in the short term. This holds even for a successor who opposed or did not openly support Putin’s war prior to taking office. Thus, Putin’s war may very well continue without Putin.

[snip]

Is There a Difference Between Leaders Who Start a War and Those Who Inherit a War?

The leadership change theory of war termination, reiterated in various forms over the years, is widely accepted and effectively represents the conventional wisdom. But the theory is flawed or at least incomplete. One can readily find cases in which political leadership change helped facilitate an end to costly, protracted war. However, even if leadership change is often a necessary condition for war termination, it is rarely a sufficient condition. In other words, war termination is often preceded by a change of leadership, but most wartime changes of leadership do not result in war termination.

For example, scholars point to Mikhail Gorbachev’s accession as key to the Soviet Union’s exit from Afghanistan and likewise note the formation of the Mendès-France government in 1954 as facilitating an end to France’s post-colonial war in Indochina. But Gorbachev was the fourth Soviet premier to preside over the 10-year Afghan conflict, and France experienced no less than nine wartime changes of government before Pierre Mendès-France accepted military defeat and extricated the French army from Indochina. With the 85 cases of political leaders embroiled in wars characterized as costly, protracted foreign military interventions, the data shows that 86 percent of initial leaders responsible for starting a war keep fighting until they either leave office or achieve what can reasonably be interpreted as a win. Amongst those new leaders who merely inherit an ongoing war, 66 percent likewise prove unable or unwilling to terminate short of victory.
**

Source:

Will Putin's War in Ukraine Continue Without Him?

Will Russia’s war in Ukraine continue if Russian President Vladimir Putin leaves office? Since the invasion in February, there has been ongoing

warontherocks.com

 

[phoenyx]

Biden still drives the US war funding with his unlimited support no matter what.
Congress would have to stand upto the Zelensky-its. Much easier just to send Z the kitchen sink

Yeah, at best, I can see a reduction in financing, but I'd be pretty surprised if the funding stopped altogether. Also, does Z stand for Zelensky?

 

[Airyaman]

There's no doubt Putin's GOP will cut off aid to Ukraine. The sooner the aid stops the sooner Putin can finally gain some advantage. That is what MAGA wants.

 

[phoenyx]

There's no doubt Putin's GOP will cut off aid to Ukraine. The sooner the aid stops the sooner Putin can finally gain some advantage. That is what MAGA wants.

I have to chuckle at that. Part of the GOP actually encouraged Biden to give Ukraine more lethal aid than Biden had originally envisioned back in March:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/17/republicans-ukraine-aid-vote/

At this point, however, it's clear that the GOP has become divided on sending Ukraine military aid:

GOP leaders McConnell, McCarthy headed for collision on Ukraine aid

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) are headed for a collision next year on spending more money to help Ukraine. McConnell has led Republican…

thehill.com

 

[Airyaman]

I have to chuckle at that. Part of the GOP actually encouraged Biden to give Ukraine more lethal aid than Biden had originally envisioned back in March:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/17/republicans-ukraine-aid-vote/

At this point, however, it's clear that the GOP has become divided on sending Ukraine military aid:

GOP leaders McConnell, McCarthy headed for collision on Ukraine aid

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) are headed for a collision next year on spending more money to help Ukraine. McConnell has led Republican…

thehill.com

Old school Republicans (pre-MAGA) support Ukraine. But they are dying out, MAGA is taking over. If the GOP takes over in January, MAGA will be driving the bus.

 

[phoenyx]

Old school Republicans (pre-MAGA) support Ukraine. But they are dying out, MAGA is taking over. If the GOP takes over in January, MAGA will be driving the bus.

I actually agree with that. As someone who identifies as a progressive, I'm generally not a fan of Trump. However, as an -anti war- progressive, I fully support their drive to stop financing the war in Ukraine.

 

[Airyaman]

I actually agree with that. As someone who identifies as a progressive, I'm generally not a fan of Trump. However, as an -anti war- progressive, I fully support their drive to stop financing the war in Ukraine.

MAGA is not anti-war, they are anti-Ukraine, pro-Russia.

 

[phoenyx]

MAGA is not anti-war, they are anti-Ukraine, pro-Russia.

I speak for myself, not MAGA. I believe that analyzing the true causes of the Ukraine war and working out an appropriate peace settlement would be in the best interests of all of humanity.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I think I may have not been completely clear in what I meant. The text I quoted in the opening post was indeed from RT.

Everything you post is from RT.

I covered the topic here.....

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...lision-on-ukraine-aid.494216/#post-1076752701 (The Hill)

 

[Rogue Valley]

I believe that analyzing the true causes of the Ukraine war and working out an appropriate peace settlement would be in the best interests of all of humanity.

The true cause is easy.... Putin wants to reconsttitute the Soviet/Russian empire of the 20th century.

Putin: Soviet collapse a 'genuine tragedy'

In his annual state of the nation address on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the collapse of the Soviet empire “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”

www.nbcnews.com

 

[anatta]

gee who didn't see this coming??

Kinzinger on McCarthy Ukraine remarks: ‘You’re giving aid and comfort to the enemy, intentionally or unintentionally’

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said on Wednesday that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) recent remarks suggesting a GOP majority would limit Ukrainian aid are “giving aid and comfort …

thehill.com

 

[phoenix2020]

In this situation I'm not sure I'd outright disagree with some curtailment. Frankly speaking, the United States is only interested in supporting Ukraine to the point that it causes no discomfort for Americans. The result are half-hearted, ineffective sanctions since Russia's key trading partners are still happily doing brisk business with them. We have little leverage in terms of sanctions, we're not interested in a shooting war with Russia that puts our solders in harm's way, so the only thing we can do is keep shipping arms so that Ukraine becomes one large, perpetual munitions test site.

The current situation seems like a stalemate.

If we dip into a recession, I absolutely can see Americans preferring to handle our own circumstances first--and can see Republicans dipping into that mindset for support / traction.

This is the problem with nuclear weapon states. For the most part--and as the United States itself has proved time and time again--a nuclear weapons state can start a war unilaterally against a non-nuclear state with minimal risk of retaliation on its home soil.

 

[CaughtInThe]

That's wonderful news for Russia and Putin as they slaughter white people in the Ukraine.

 

[lwf]

It won't end. At most it will be capped, and there will be more oversight into how it's spent. Even Republicans know that Russia must pay the highest price it possibly can for this unprovoked invasion in order for any hope of future stability.

 

[Quag]

I don't see it that way. As I mentioned, I decided to use RT's article in the title of this thread because I thought the title was a better descriptor. Axios title suggested that ending U.S. financing of the Ukraine war was a bad thing, something I definitely don't agree with.

RT is a known propaganda site by using it diminishes any point you wish to make. If you don't know it: the medium is the message is a good phrase to look up

 

[Quag]

I think that strongly depends on who succeeds him. I think Shawn Cochran, writing for War on the Rocks has a good article on this. Quoting from it:

**
October 10, 2022

[snip]

A wartime transfer of leadership in Russia could go in many different directions. Pundits have identified a host of potential successors, ranging from the outspoken hawk Dmitry Medvedev to Sergei Sobyanin, who has consistently sought to distance himself from Putin’s war in Ukraine. Some have even raised the possibility, even if slim, of imprisoned opposition leader Alexey Navalny replacing Putin. While individual differences certainly matter, the politics of blame associated with war termination does not discriminate: Any new leader who seeks to extricate Russia from Putin’s war likely will face tough domestic hurdles. Russia’s current domestic political environment, as characterized by an intense blame game pitting political versus military leadership, would be especially dangerous for Putin’s successor and disincentive any move to abandon Russia’s war aims in Ukraine and seek peace, at least in the short term. This holds even for a successor who opposed or did not openly support Putin’s war prior to taking office. Thus, Putin’s war may very well continue without Putin.

[snip]

Is There a Difference Between Leaders Who Start a War and Those Who Inherit a War?

The leadership change theory of war termination, reiterated in various forms over the years, is widely accepted and effectively represents the conventional wisdom. But the theory is flawed or at least incomplete. One can readily find cases in which political leadership change helped facilitate an end to costly, protracted war. However, even if leadership change is often a necessary condition for war termination, it is rarely a sufficient condition. In other words, war termination is often preceded by a change of leadership, but most wartime changes of leadership do not result in war termination.

For example, scholars point to Mikhail Gorbachev’s accession as key to the Soviet Union’s exit from Afghanistan and likewise note the formation of the Mendès-France government in 1954 as facilitating an end to France’s post-colonial war in Indochina. But Gorbachev was the fourth Soviet premier to preside over the 10-year Afghan conflict, and France experienced no less than nine wartime changes of government before Pierre Mendès-France accepted military defeat and extricated the French army from Indochina. With the 85 cases of political leaders embroiled in wars characterized as costly, protracted foreign military interventions, the data shows that 86 percent of initial leaders responsible for starting a war keep fighting until they either leave office or achieve what can reasonably be interpreted as a win. Amongst those new leaders who merely inherit an ongoing war, 66 percent likewise prove unable or unwilling to terminate short of victory.
**

Source:

Will Putin's War in Ukraine Continue Without Him?

Will Russia’s war in Ukraine continue if Russian President Vladimir Putin leaves office? Since the invasion in February, there has been ongoing

warontherocks.com

The important thing is that Putin goes out the window that is the greatest thing he could do for his country and the world, but he won't do it on his own
It really doesn't matter who replaces Putin. The war is unpopular, and no successor will continue it or risk following Putin out a window.
Russia even with another evil tyrant at the helm will not be a threat to anyone as they will have to rebuild their decimated military but before that they must rebuild their economy

Basically, Russia is forked for a while, the sooner they get out of Ukraine the sooner they can begin to heal