>

The problem here isnt that anyone actually likes Putin, the problem is that we are just heaving enormous piles money at Ukraine and taxpayers are starting wonder why? What is it being spent on? How much longer with this? Is Ukraine really our problem to this degree?   
These are fair questions to ask.
The Ukranian Lend Lease act passed the House 417-10 this year, and it runs through 2023.  So most Rs did support them, amd they can't really stop it for a full year even of they all switched.  
The Q-friendly and Russian corrupted or useful idiots will keep making noise, but there is no way they get the unanimity necessary to provoke a major legislative crisis in order to repeal the Lend Lease Act.
In short, it is all sound amd fury. >

This is what I’m thinking. The serious calls to cut the Ukrainian aid come from the villains caucus, the small minority who want to look as nasty and Putin-aligned as possible. >

"Villains Caucus". I like that. >

I prefer clown caucas myself >

Far right nutties like MTG aside, I doubt any campaign statement about Ukraine costing too much money is anything more than saber rattling. McCarthy knows Ukraine aid is chump change compared to america's need to feed the military industrial complex. >

Its a dumb argument to make anyway. Almost all the money being "sent" to Ukraine is being spent in the US buying military gear and services. >

And it's mostly Lend-Lease aid, which means as long as Ukraine exists, they're going to pay us back eventually, which is a boost to the US long term. >

You think the US will collect on this?
Ukraine isn't ever going to be able to afford to pay this back.  Claiming it is a loan is political posturing.
We are taking money from Americans, and giving it to protect Ukraine.  That is what is happening, that isn't a bad thing, but lets be honest about it.  Why the fuck does everything have to be a spin to pretend like everything is perfect on one side and everything is evil on the other side.
the world is gray, we need to stop pretending it isn't.  Everyone in the US is part of the 1%, its ok for us to make sacrifices for other nations. >

I think you need to look in how long it took other countries to pay back Lend-Lease money before you say that it'll never happen. And I really think you should take a step back and reevaluate before you insult people's integrity based on a disagreement online. >

This article seems to indicate the loans were rolled into additional loans made to Britain after the war, and we're repaid in 2006. Am I missing something? >

Hmm ok, so they basically paid for 10% of the value (looks a little off probably due to exchange rates). Interesting. Thanks! >

They paid 10% of whatever equipment survived the war. They paid a fraction of that all totalled. >

The "serious", and I am using that word extremely generously, GOP politicians know Russia is a geopolitical adversary, even if it isn't fashionable to acknowledge that fact to their base anymore. There are enough GOP politicians that fall under the very loose definition of the word that know that the amount of resources we are committing to Ukraine are an incredibly small amount considering the long term economic, military and diplomatic damage that is being done to the Russian federation. 
Prior to the war, Russia was considered one of the strongest and most capable militaries in the world after the US, now they are seen as a paper tiger, or paper bear as I like to say. I think the powers that be within the GOP know that investing in Ukraine is a no-brainer in containing and hamstringing Russia. >

You’re right, but the question we should be asking isn’t whether anyone is the GOP is clear-sighted about and, as you say, “serious” about this; the question is whether those who are clear-sighted and serious are in control of their own party. 
The answer to that is much less certain, and frankly I’m afraid of the answer. That faction that animates their base is certainly is not among the group of “serious” people, and I don’t have enough faith in the integrity of those “serious” people to stand up to them. >

They don't need to be in control they just need to peel off enough to pass it with the Dems. >

It does very much matter, when the Speaker of the House is in control of what bills get brought to the floor. >

Good point but McCarthy is in a very weak position. I'm not sure how he intends to navigate the speakership yet. >

Agreed; hence, the question I said we should all be asking. >

Not as long as they back or fear Trump. He made his position very clear multiple times he sides with Putin every time. The Russian buildup happened throughout Trump’s presidency. He wasn’t supposed to lose, Putin was only waiting for Trump’s 2nd term. According to John Bolton, if Trump had won, he planned on pulling the US out of NATO and cutting funding for Ukraine immediately. That would have doomed Ukraine and today there would not be a war. Although Trump no longer has presidential powers, he is still 100% of the push to stop funding for Ukraine. >

That is a big picture that a number of people don't see.  This was almost like a big villain comic book plan.  With the 2020 election, putin expected trump to win.  Before the war even started, I believe putin was set at a plan and there was a point of no return.  Once seeing that trump would not be President, putin still went with it because he had to.  I believe, putin fell victim to the fox news propaganda that Joe Biden would be confused and Sleepy Joe.  That was not the case.
Much like you have stated, had trump got a second term, The United States would be out of NATO, Ukraine would have much less western defensive funding, and I believe bigger fractures in European connections would be happening.
We have a long way to go with this situation and its effect on the world, but I believe it could have been much much worse had certain things went the other way. >


We have a long way to go with this situation and its effect on the world, but I believe it could have been much much worse had certain things went the other way.

If Trump pulled out of NATO and funding for Ukraine I think Poland would get involved and escalate the situation eventually drawing Europe into a large unpredictable war. >

And somehow Hitler returns >

Weird that the same faction of GOP reps that continues to push the “stolen election” lie is also against supporting the fight against a Russian invasion of Ukraine. >

Weird that their rhetoric so closely matches the Kremlin. >

Isn’t it?
Huh, oh well. I’m sure it’s just a big ole coincidence! >

Just like CPAC being held in Hungary. >

Most Republicans are capable and have even said they can see the positives of having Ukraine take down Russia. The biggest upside being that it does not cost any American soldiers to achieve. 
The usual idiot Republicans of course are saying differently, but they are just a very small minority. >

Some house Republicans are still trying to decide if they support the United States. >

The GOP is concerned with obstruction. That's the only policy for them. Oppose Biden. I don't see how that helps their constituents,  but trump seems to appreciate the show of support for his handler (Putin) >

The GOP wants a complete audit of the funding and armaments sent to the Ukraine thus far before any more are sent.   There is no accountability and many European countries are complaining the armaments are being sold and are showing up in their countries.
Further, the Ukrainian oligarchs and their families left Ukraine with their money and are at their leisure in other countries even though a ban on fighting age men leaving the country.   Accountability. >

Choosing not to finance one war is not isolationist. Unless they're suggesting we decommision all 800 military bases scattered around the world and stop trading with China, then they are not advocating an isolationist policy. Is anyone suggesting we stop supporting Israel? No, they are not. >

Absolutely not. They've been at pro-Russian rhetoric since the war started. Stuff like "The US shouldn't be involved in European politics." etc...
The R's need that NRA money to keep flowing. >

The biggest naysayers of the US going into WW2 were the right wing in America.
They love war, but not when it's actually defending people. >

The biggest naysayers of the US going into WW2 were the right wing in America.
They love war, but not when it's actually defending people.
—————————————————————————
Actually, that’s a lie. Senate voted 82 to 0 to declare war and the house voted 388 to 1. The single vote against war was a pacifist Republican who was always against ANY war. She was Jeannette Rankin of Montana. “As a woman, I can’t go to war, and I refuse to send anyone else.”
Do you have any proof that Rankin loved war, but not when it’s actually defending people? >

I'm curious as to how long Democrats will support it.
Will democrats support our involvement  in other wars against invading forces?
What is the win?  Where will support stop? >

The Squad already tried to convince Biden to reduce support and work to convince Ukraine to trade land for peace.
The MAGA wing of the GOP is somewhat larger, perhaps 60 Republicans, compared to the 30 Democrats that signed that letter but its pretty clear that both parties have an element that don't want to continue signing blank checks. >

They aren’t happy unless we have “boots on the ground”…a full all out search for CrowdStrike servers…. >

Don’t those people just oppose everything in principle? They wouldn’t be Republicans if they didn’t block stuff all the time. >

They already said they wouldn't provide as much support.
Their clapping today was just for show.
They still support Russia. >

Probably. It was Republicans who in January wanted to give Ukraine what they called a "NATO-plus" status, i.e., most of NATO's guarantees  minus the consensus of a few lesser member states.
IMHO, the differences in Republican and Democrat foreign policy boils down to little more than in which order they want to escalate their policies against Russia and China. >

I was thinking about it too. Maybe they won't continue they have already said it. >

If leadership supports it, they can always put up a vote of all Democrats and 50% of Republicans. They don't typically put things up for a vote that have less than 50% support in their own caucus, but 50% is enough if enough Democrats are on board. 
Just trying to say that while the farther right elements have a lot of power on what Republicans can pass because if they withhold support and Democrats don't support, it can't pass, they actually hold very little sway over things that Democrats support. >

I don’t think it’s pro Putin to want accountability of where the money being given to Ukraine is going.
Does Ukraine have a reputation for a lack of corruption? >


They recently discovered electronic items in the reconfigured Iranian drones that Russians are dropping like rain on Kieva and other cities. Ukraine has always been a corrupt country, and this should have been expected. 

How are Iranian made drones being sent to Russia to bomb civilian infrastructure in Ukraine expected because of Ukrainian "corruption"
??? >

It’s remarkable that for the first time in recent history, the DEMOCRATS are the warmongers. While the REPUBLICANS are seeking peace and diplomacy. 
So are the republicans the party of peace now? >

Nope. Republicans are the party of war crimes, rape, and murder of children if they let Russia take over Ukraine. >

It’s interesting to hear how much hate and revulsion you have for the republicans.
And you’re not alone- this hate is heard by many, and is reciprocated by the republicans against the democrats. 
The best part is how neither party really cares for you. 
But more importantly this is all preamble to the breakup of the United States. 
Back to the subject - democrats are only speaking war, while there have been a few figures on the right pushing diplomacy. 
You don’t think peace is the solution? >

Peace is the solution yes, but not at the cost of Ukraine losing its most valuable land. Those are the minimum terms of peace which Russia will not honor. >

Ok sure. I’ll respect your opinion on this. 
My point is that democrats aren’t talking peace at all. That one letter signed by a number of democrats calling for talks was subsequently withdrawn. 
Why is that? Why can’t we get the two parties together to resolve their differences?
Shouldn’t we be against flooding the region with arms? Look at the results of the last 200 odds days of war, none of it is bringing peace. >

Because it’s up to Ukraine to decide what their minimum terms are for literally not having their country be taken over and if Russia doesn’t respect that then we can’t do anything except support them. It’s a Russia Ukraine conflict not Russia USA. Plus it’s in our best interests to make sure countries stand up to Russia.
Also the vast majority of both parties are together on this besides the far right nut cases. >

You’re dismissing those who call for peace as ‘nut cases’. 
Really? Warmongers are normal and those looking for a peaceful solution are nut cases? >

First of all, they’re nut cases because of literally everything they say, not just because of Ukraine.
Secondly, the solution they are calling for is not “peace”, it’s allowing Russia to freely invade countries without consequences. It has and will happen again and again in the future if we keep allowing it. >

How do you know what their solution is when the haven’t even sat down to talk?
The last time they negotiated was Minsk 2, and we were almost at lasting peace. 
Merkel’s latest interview with der Spiegel showed that the west was never interested in peace. 
Where does that leave the Russians? >

Bro yes exactly the Minsk 2 was working, and then Putin decided to fucking invade. Hello??? The West just wants to go back to that, but Putin is the one violating Minsk 2. The blame is 10000% entirely on the Russians. 
What do you mean "Where does that leave the Russians?". Maybe they could've not invaded? >

I think what Republicans said is that they won't give a blank check to Ukraine, they also said they will continue to support Ukraine. Let's be honest, Ukraine isn't the most stable country in the world and corruption there, is quite high, these are facts. >

~~Will House Republicans continue supporting Ukraine?~~
Will the Biden administration force the US citizens/taxpayers  to fund the bill for this new proxy war? >

Of course we will be paying for it.
Do I balk at the fact that my taxes are going to supporting a very important war go-politically? Nope, give them hell please >

The same people who tout this line are often the people who vote against that very thing. I have a relative who openly wonders why we spend money on foreign aid that we could spend on Americans...then routinely votes down politicians who want health reform, homeless shelters, and welfare.
It's not an either/or where the money is spent on Ukraine OR America. We can and should do both. >

There are enough house Republicans who support spending a seemingly endless amount of our national treasure to support Ukraine.  The scary part of all this is that this isn’t just about getting Russia out of Ukraine.  It is an attempt by all parties involved to change the regime in Russia (an almost impossible task).  Many house Republicans do not believe this will end until that happens, but enough feel letting Russia win would embolden our real enemies China to invade Taiwan which would be a much larger problem.  Whether you are for or against massive spending in Ukraine, the spending will continue. >

The amount of money spent on Ukraine has been miniscule. >

Define “minuscule” please.