>

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.
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.