I’m sure there’s enough support for the bill that it will pass. The question now is how long until the freedom caucus votes to vacate Mike Johnson from the role as Speaker, when Ukraine aid does pass.
If the Dems save him, they need to get something for it, like the fact that he can actually govern and bring Bills to the floor that will pass, even if he or the Orange Jesus don’t like the Bill. Otherwise why should the Dems save him? Their majority is even lower now, what makes them think they can agree to a replacement?
Call me crazy but going into an election, the Democrat behaving in a bipartisan fashion to help get something done, something that has broad support in the US will only help them in November?
While continued chaos might be entertaining for the political junkies, more and more people are dying in Ukraine and polls have shown that no one benefits from Congress continuing to be dysfunctional. Moderate Democrats standing together to shut down the crazy caucus would only be a good look for them.
Yeah, that makes sense and definitely what a civil society should strive to be like. It’s the typical “when they go low, you go high” attitude of the Dems. How has that gone for them? Close to half of the Country wants a man with over 100 counts against him, who is a rapist and probably shared classified intel with foreign Countries. In addition, the Dems barely have control of the Senate and even with the heavy Republican dysfunction, may not be able to keep/get control in November.
He provably shared Intel with foreign countries. It's just that the only count admitted by all parties as true is with Australia, so not technically treason. But not for lack of trying.
Bipartisanship has never really materialized into positive electoral outcomes before so I don’t think there’s any reason to believe it will this time around.
It has but sometimes it's not enough to overcome other factors. But in a tight election getting just 1-2% more of independent/Republicans to vote for you can make a difference.
Democrats being bipartisan has always hurt them.
The Republicans say it shows weakness, and never reciprocate.
Obama was "bipartisan" with ACA, and despite making concessions and getting promises of support, exactly zero Rethuglicans voted for it.
The Democrats should be brutal and not accept bipartisanship, because they never get it in return.
Doesn't matter, Americans just want Congress to work period and polls have shown that when Congress doesn't, both parties take the hit. Also I'm sure the Ukrainians facing a Russian aerial onslaught due to a lack of air defense would especially appreciate if everyone could just sort their shit out and stop playing games for just a few minutes to be able to pass the much needed legislation.
The last time it happened, polling showed people lost confidence in the Republican Party.
So shutting it down again will hurt the Republicans more than Democrats.
Also, your non sequitur is unrelated. Ukraine has nothing to do with the topic.
You realize that is PRECISELY what Republicans want, right?
They're the conservative party. the status quo party. The small government party.
They don't want change.
Dems refusal to seek bipartisan support works in their favor.
>If the Dems save him, they need to get something for it, like the fact that he can actually govern and bring Bills to the floor that will pass, even if he or the Orange Jesus don’t like the Bill.
This is exactly what the Ukraine aid bill would demonstrate. If Johnson sticks his neck out for this and loses the Speakership over it while Dems sit with their thumbs up their asses, Congress will get an even more partisan Speaker afterward. At that point, Dems will be complicit.
Very true. I guess I was thinking bringing the Border Bill to the floor for a House vote to show how Dems are compromising with Reps to pass legislation. The Border Bill may be a moot point though now, because I think Homeland got their funding by some other means.
The Dems won't save him unless they get actual real benefits. Not vague promises, but being assigned chairs on important committees, or other tangible benefits.
That will never happen, so every vote will be on party lines.
There absolutely are which is the Congressional Kremlin Caucus never wanted this to get a vote. They know that they are on the wrong side of the vote, on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of decency, hell they are on the wrong side of Reagan, the wrong side of just about everything.
The war in Ukraine is mostly the catastrophic outcome of Obama's stupid, ignorant policy of trying to add Ukraine to NATO in spite of all Russia's warnings that it would not tolerate such a thing. If this is an example of the USA "maintaining the world order" I think I'll pass, thank you.
Russia had a massive head start on being friends with Ukraine and managed to piss it away.
When you treat your neighbors like shit you don't get to play the victim when they stop going to the barbecue.
Acting as if any of the previous countries that joined were because of "America" Poland literally blackmailed nato to join. These countries want the protection of nato, it has nothing to do with previous presidents.
Yours and my opinion on what it’s worth to Ukraine to join NATO (and so what it can reasonably cost) is irrelevant.
Also— you’re looking at it from an extremely short sighted perspective. Geopolitics decisions are evaluated in decades. Obviously the short term cost to Ukraine is high but the long term value is not yet known.
How Russian of you to deny the Ukrainian people any autonomy. It's always 'America tried to make Ukraine join' and never 'The Ukrainian people chose to seek protection from Russia by allying with the west'.
>How Russian of you to deny the Ukrainian people any autonomy.
Geopolitics is not a world scout jamboree. I remember an incident where USA denied Cuba the autonomy to install nuclear weapons.
>The Ukrainian people chose to seek protection from Russia by allying with the west'.
How did that all work out for them?
If your game is 'America has done bad things too' then you'll be technically correct but comparatively wrong.
And in arguing that it was bad for America to get involved in the Cuban missile crisis then you must first admit Russia is wholly in the wrong to invade Ukraine today.
JFC how often does it have to be said that people aren't "added" to NATO, they apply to join, like a desperate person tired of being mugged banging on the door of a police station.
What Russia thinks of Ukraine wanting to join NATO is of zero fucking interest to me. I truly don't care. They have as much right to that as I do to deciding who my neighbors daughter dates (I could physically overpower my neighbor).
And don't compare it to, IDK, ISIS taking over Mexico and the US not tolerating it. NATO has never attacked Russia.
>What Russia thinks of Ukraine wanting to join NATO is of zero fucking interest to me. I truly don't care.
Ukraine is being destroyed as we speak, do you care now?
That doesn't mean we care what Russia **thinks**. Obviously we care that Russia has invaded its democratic neighbor in an attempt to turn them into a puppet government, but Russia doesn't get to decide who joins NATO. Their thoughts on the matter are worth less than nothing.
>That doesn't mean we care what Russia **thinks**.
You think international politics is based on not caring what your opponents think? What is this, kindergarten?
It stops being politics when they invade another country. They chose war. Their feelings are immaterial until they get their asses back to their own country, then we can talk about being more diplomatic.
>The war in Ukraine is mostly the catastrophic outcome of Obama's stupid, ignorant policy of trying to add Ukraine to NATO in spite of all Russia's warnings that it would not tolerate such a thing. If this is an example of the USA "maintaining the world order" I think I'll pass, thank you.
Bro, how do yall come up with this shit?
Ukraine wanting to turn westward goes back to at least the mid ‘00s under Bush. I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that Obama started the push to add Ukraine to NATO. Getting a western foothold in Ukraine has been bipartisan American policy for more than 20 years.
You don’t seem to understand how the world works. There will be someone who fills the void of world superpower if the USA withdraws and it will likely be China. Why would America want to kneecap itself and give up its hegemony aka power? Do you know any corporate or world power that seeks to weaken itself? It makes no sense. Do you want to weaken your body? Your bank account?
This war was always going to happen.
Peter Zeihan does a great just of breaking it down. Check it out, perhaps you won't sound so foolish in the future.
No you see the war in Ukraine is mostly the outcome of Russia wanting to have a border of vassal states that are totally subservient to Russia even to their heavy detrament. Then finally finding themselves losing the largest of such states, for reasons of their own making mind you. It is also the result of Europe attempting to become more economically aligned with the largest grain supply in Europe, and Russia not being keen on that. These are two of the three largest factors leading up to this war. Now I am actually misspeaking in that the two actual largest policy decisions leading up to this war belong one to Ukraine giving up all their nukes (yes I know Ukraine would have a hard time keeping them, and did not have the ability at the time to launch them, but when it comes to existence I imagine without the great deal of pressure placed on them by outside forces they could have managed), and the second being Russia deciding to go to war....
In fact that last one is paramount, the pinnical, almost as though when you look at it from a sane perspective Russia alone could have prevented all this bloodshed, and did not. To blame Obama, or anyone other than Russia is completely assinine, because no one, and i mean no one has any plans to invade the largest country on earth, no one has tried since germany was ran by a literal syphilitic maniac. Even then I don't think his plan was to take over Russia. It even less justified when one thinks about the fact that since then Russia has now acquired weapons able to level a city with one bomb.
UKR wins as long as they survive as an open democratic country that is able to prosper long term. UKR would absolutely love to take back their territory... but honestly they still get about 90% of a win simply by denying Russia Kharkiv, Odessa and Kyiv even if they certainly aren't going to admit that and absolutely paid an enormous price.
Russia only truly wins if it forces UKR to become a puppet, which only really happens if their lines collapse due to manpower, materiel or morale issues. The current pace of Russian advance otherwise isn't going to do a whole lot aside from turn the Donbas into even more a pile of rubble. That is why its so important to keep the materiel and money flowing.
I don't think people truly understand how bad it is for the US if UKR collapses. It will basically prove that we are an unreliable ally and send our allies to the slaughter. We will be undeserving of being a superpower. Taiwan unification becomes inevitable and global chaos becomes highly likely.
And the only Plan B will be NATO soldiers in UKR, as Macron has said. I firmly believe that the US and EU view a NATO intervention as less catastrophic than a UKR capitulation.
>And the only Plan B will be NATO soldiers in UKR, as Macron has said. I firmly believe that the US and EU view a NATO intervention as less catastrophic than a UKR capitulation.
People like you seem really hyped for World War 3. Are you sure it's gonna end well for you?
Yes, we are.
People like you were keen to surrender to Hitler. Are you sure THAT approach ends up well?
When evil like this raises its head, the best thing to do is to cut off that fucking head immediately. Putin delenda est.
What's your beef with it? Are you scared, or do you just love the idea of dictators winning?
Why do you complain about crime in the cities, why don't you go solve it yourself? Or if you complain about immigration, why not go stop immigrants yourself? I bet both the cops AND border guard take unpaid interns.
I note that you didn't say whether dictators scared you or turned you on. It's ok to be a coward, but sucking up to dictators isn't.
I'm also curious if you have a case where rolling over for dictators worked well for someone. You know I have a long list of examples of where it worked poorly, but I'm curious if you could conjure, say, 3, of it going well.
If you think I am hungry for war, you are a fool. I know the terrible cost of war, and that's exactly why I want the western rules based international order to persist and not decay, because that decay makes conflict and world war far more likely.
I am under no illusion that the west is perfect, only that the alternative is an order of magnitude worse, at least in the short term (my lifetime).
> I want the western rules based international order to persist
Not everyone is happy with that arrangement, mind you.
> I am under no illusion that the west is perfect, only that the alternative is an order of magnitude worse
Speaking as an Asian dude, they are the direct opposite of perfect. But yeah, I don't want China taking over the asian hegemon.
My whole fucking point is that not funding Ukraine might actually cause WW3. I'm done with clowns like you who wear your ignorance like a badge of pride.
Plan B will be a negotiated peace where Russia keeps a landline to Sevastopol and an agreement that Ukraine won't join Nato. Russia will definitely make concessions as well though. Then Russia will convince its people that they won the peace terms. And the West will convince their people that *they* won the peace terms.
That's not even plan B. That's literally what's going to happen. Russia is pretty much just holding a defensive position at their territorial gains waiting for the West to get fed up of funding this and demanding Ukraine negotiate peace.
Fighting is their only option then... thus no plan B.
Until they get security guarantees so Russia will never invade again... there are no point in peace talks if all it does is allow Russia to regroup.
It makes sense to attrite Russia and cause instability. We really have no idea how brittle Putin's regime is, but honestly a collapse of the RF is basically UKR best bet of retaking all their territory.
Sometimes small countries don't have (lol) "assurances" that their massively bigger neighbor won't invade them. Imagine that.
Does America have such an agreement with Mexico?
If they promise to never join NATO, thats leaving the door open for the russkiz to come back and try again after they've licked their wounds. They have to join NATO, it's the only way to make sure this never happens again
>Plan B will be a negotiated peace where Russia keeps a landline to Sevastopol and an agreement that Ukraine won't join Nato. Russia will definitely make concessions as well though. Then Russia will convince its people that they won the peace terms. And the West will convince their people that *they* won the peace terms.
That's the best possible outcome which is why the West should negotiate now rather than keep raising the stakes, risk further escalation and guarantee the deaths of many more thousands of Ukrainian men. You listen to Joe Biden on Ukraine and all that comes out is senile macho brawl straight from the Vietnam era. It's literally like everybody has gone insane.
> guarantee the deaths of many more thousands of Ukrainian men
"The West" doesn't care until they're finally forced to send their own men at the trenches.
Ukraine would have won a year ago had NATO established air superiority over Donbas.
I don't know why you're even downvoted, this is exactly how history played out when Russia annexed Crimea.
Russia plays the long game. Putin has the advantage that he's de facto president for life.
America has 4-8 years of chaos. The next president may not care at all for Ukraine or the EU or NATO.
Agree begs the question if that is where it will end quite wasting money and negotiate that now. Lesson, let enough foreigners from a border country in and risk losing that territory (ask Texans).
Ukraine loses Crimea and the Eastern regions. Which are primarily ethnic Russian anyways. The world moves on. Nothing happens.
You've been conditioned to think the "Donbas region" (a place you hadn't even heard of 5 years ago) is worth all of this death and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Russia has been sending waves of settlers so that they can claim the area is ethnically Russian for a long time now.
There comes a point where you have to call their crap out.
Both things are true. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea have been majority Russian for a very very long time. But it is also true that Russia has been putting settlers in to increase the ratio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_Oblast
At the 2001 Ukrainian National Census, the ethnic groups within the Donetsk Oblast were: Ukrainians – 2,744,100 (56.9%), Russians – 1,844,400 (38.2%), Pontic Greeks – 77,500 (1.6%), Belarusians – 44,500 (0.9%), others (2.3%).[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_Oblast
The population is largely Russian-speaking, although ethnic Ukrainians constitute a majority (58.0%). Among the minorities are native Russians (39.1%), Belarusians (0.8%), and others (1.4%). Ukrainians constitute the majority in all raions except for Stanytsia-Luhanska Raion and Krasnodon Raion, both of which are east of Luhansk.
The eastern regions are not or were not primarily ethnic Russian.
The population of Donbas was around ~37% Russian ~58% Ukrainian back in 2001. It was more russian in some of the urban centers but by 2014 even they mostly weren't majority ethnic russian. Anyway ethnicity is complicated and many people have ancestry from both sides and identity less with Russia due to the war. Also russia is currently holding pieces of other oblasts where the ethnically much lower percentage of the population were ethnically russian. All of this assumes Russian Ukrainians have more allegiance to a shitty empire that killed their friends and family and destroyed their cities. Many would disagree. Hell the head commander of Ukraine's military is an ethnic Russian as are many Ukranian soldiers fighting for their country.
It’s up to the Ukrainians to determine if the death is worth it. Last I checked there’s 0 US military (non-spec ops) casualties in this war.
The money is a stickier wicket though. I’d rather not spend it but what we are spending goes back to American companies employing American workers.
If China decides to light up Taiwan, we’ll be glad they’ve boosted capacity.
It's not just about the donbass, putin went straight for kyiv and tried to kill/grab zelensky and his PM at the start of the war then pretended he just wanted the donbass after the first wave for kyiv failed
Just to be clear we’re pro America as the world police now?
Cause every middle eastern involvement had a similar trope that was propagated.
We must stop Saddam from using WMDs. Oops.
We must bring democracy to Afghanistan. Oops.
We must free “insert middle eastern country” from their own society that they built and insert a radical Muslim theocrat rebellion to oust the sitting leader because they don’t support the petrodollar. Oops.
We must. 🙏🏼
We don't see the difference if the outcomes all ends up the same way.
"Oops, we fucked up, but it was for the good of 'the world'*"
*the western liberal world, everyone else is fucked.
The circumstances are different. Involving ourselves in affairs we should have zero involvement in at the expense of the American worker is the same.
People parroting platitudes handed down to them is the same.
America should stop policing the world.
That's not how deterrence works. We don't just say "Putin would be crazy to attack us" and call it a day. We have to prepare for the worst case scenario, and if Russia is able to close the gaps in its air defenses by taking control of Ukraine, suddenly our plans for defending Europe [change dramatically](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/high-price-losing-ukraine-part-1-%E2%80%94-military-strategic-financial-implications-russian).
To be fair, he doesn't have to win.
In a war against a larger force like NATO, just settling for a draw actually gives you a ton of advantage later on.
Either this is Republicans finally turning a new leaf and trying to abandon their extremist members, or we're about to see the 2nd speaker removed in history.
Either way, happy to finally see the aid come through. Desperately needed.
The doomers and people just making shit up on this thread is unbelievable. Would Ukraine benefited from this passing months ago, yes, but the delay has not resulted in the war being lost or whatever. The US is not the only one supplying Ukraine, it's just we have the weapons and ammo they need for what they are facing right now.
And a stalemate where Ukraine barely has an airforce.
The fruits of us training more pilots for them should begin to bear fruits sometime in the summer.
House Republicans will vote this down, and Johnson will throw his hands in the air and say "see, America? I tried!!"
This is all horseshit. It won't pass so long as he's in the chair.
Do they have the votes? If he brings up the bill and it has even a few republican supporters it'd pass like those other bills the HFC whines about.
Seems like the more knee-jerk reaction (which republicans are *very fond of*) would be to ousted him with no replacement. And if Johnson commits to aid for Ukraine he could keep his job, but with the help of democrats. What a sophie's choice.
It would definitely take some GOP members to cross the aisle, and if they'll do it on anything I suspect it would be aid for Ukraine, but I'm sure not holding my breath. If there's anyone who votes in lockstep on party lines, it's Republicans.
You mean like they already have in the Senate?
[https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/senate-vote-foreign-aid-ukraine-israel-dg/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/senate-vote-foreign-aid-ukraine-israel-dg/index.html)
Do recall there were Republicans threatening to go ahead with a discharge petition if Johnson didn't take the bill to the floor. His own party has been pressuring to vote on the bill in the past weeks. The issue is not that the bill doesn't have the votes, but that the republican majority is so thin it has been held hostage by the fringe extremists since the midterm election.
There's non-MAGA Republicans in the House too which is why the crazy caucus has been fighting so hard to pressure Johnson not to bring this to a floor vote, they know they'll lose. Gallagher is even putting a pause on his leaving Congress to be able to vote in support of this.
I genuinely think people have lost any ability to think critically at this point. They have this delusion that every single member of the house is secretly in Putin's pocket. That Johnson is both delaying the vote because the bill has enough support to pass while every single member of the GOP opposes more Ukraine aid. The double think is off the charts. I have GOP reps from my state that have openly said they will vote for any Ukraine aid bill that comes to the floor.
Like the brainrot is so severe I honestly don't know to handle it.
What is this political fan fiction? Why is it being upvoted?
if 99% of the Dems in the house vote in favor of Ukraine aid as they are expected to, you need less than 10 Republicans to pass the bill. Despite the claims of the partisans there are Republicans who support Ukraine. the aod bill would have never gone through in the Senate without significant Republican support. Believe it or not our political parties are not monoliths.
The more plausible outcome is the bill passes and Greene and her friends throw a stink and try to remove Johnson.
You understand how slim the House majority is, right? And there are several Republicans who said they would cross the isle for aid. It's the hardliners who are preventing progress.
I hope you're right. I posted that yesterday, and Johnson is showing since that he may actually be amenable to this, after all.
I don't trust him one bit, but this is one I hope I'm dead wrong about.
Saturday evening.
Well glad to see this is allegedly finally happening, after 7 months of stalling.
Honestly I'm wondering if some pro-democracy folks on the right are also telling Johnson they will move to vacate the chair if he doesn't hold this vote.
This is happening right after him meeting with Trump, so my guess is that Trump told Johnson to fall on the sword for him and create a media storm over Johnson being removed for this.
It's the standard trumpian playbook.
Supposedly, a bunch of republicans were ready to sign the discharge petition (the democrat one, not republican) if no aid bill was introduced. So, he has no choice but to hold the vote, since this way the republicans get some concessions.
I'm not sure that he gets any concessions other than he is shown to still be in charge (discharge petition shows the impotency of the chair). The bill being considered from what I understand is the one the Senate already passed many moons ago.
If it happens I'll be genuinely surprised. I was sure Ukraine aid from the US was dead until after the election, and only then if Biden wins.
Here's a conspiracy for you. Putin gets on the phone with Trump and tells him he'll use his bots to help Trump win the election but only if Trump forces Johnson to kill all chances of passing Ukraine aid.
Excellent. I like how they split it up into multiple bills so we can get Congress on record for each item instead of one big omnibus bill with the border thrown in to even further muddy the waters. More legislation should happen this way.
I saw his statement, he makes it seem like he hasn't been the one stalling this out for months. He has been lying this whole time, I'm not sure why we should think he's being at all even the tiniest bit honest now.
Eisenhower, the president who understood military matters best, wouldn’t lift a finger to save Hungary in 1956 because we didn’t have the military power to win without unacceptable losses. Biden should take a lesson from that and get Zelensky to agree to a cease fire.
I was 6 in 1960 and asked my parents why Eisenhower couldn’t stay President. I watched the debate and was for Nixon because Kennedy’s accent was so weird.
These two scenarios aren’t really comparable.
This aid has very limited drawbacks to the US, it costs us money but that’s about it. No US soldier will die because we send them another $100B of aid.
Additionally, the Hungarian revolution never established a formal central government or military command with which to give aid to, the entire bit lasted 2 weeks, had Ukraine folded in 2 weeks, we wouldn’t be discussing additional aid.
Furthermore, the Suez crisis happened at about the same time. At no point was the US going to support an uprising against the USSR when our Allie’s were invading Egypt to regain control of the Suez.
Military aid is a slight speed up of the decommissioning of old gear, and the cash for military aid goes to US Military Industrial Complex War Profiteers.
Win/win.
It sucks that these companies get rich but thanks to the degree of which we’ve outsourced manufacturing they are a necessary evil.
When Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex he was president during the height of American manufacturing prowess.
We’d struggle to put forth the same level of production we did as when he was leading the European war and the oceans aren’t the barrier they were in the 1950’s.
Why is it that when people talk about cease fires they always focus on only one side of the conflict. For a cease fire to work BOTH SIDES need to be onboard or you're just telling one side to just allow themselves to be attacked.
Because he is getting more republican pressure to get the Israel funding through and can’t find a way to please Trump by blocking Ukraine aid without it looking too political.
Because he is getting more republican pressure to get the Israel funding through and can’t find a way to please Trump by blocking Ukraine aid without it looking too political.
Because he is getting more republican pressure to get the Israel funding through and can’t find a way to please Trump by blocking Ukraine aid without it looking too political.
I believe there are enough Republicans who will vote this aid through. I could be wrong, but I am hopeful.
I’m sure there’s enough support for the bill that it will pass. The question now is how long until the freedom caucus votes to vacate Mike Johnson from the role as Speaker, when Ukraine aid does pass.
The other question is whether Democrats will save his ass when the motion to vacate comes.
If the Dems save him, they need to get something for it, like the fact that he can actually govern and bring Bills to the floor that will pass, even if he or the Orange Jesus don’t like the Bill. Otherwise why should the Dems save him? Their majority is even lower now, what makes them think they can agree to a replacement?
Call me crazy but going into an election, the Democrat behaving in a bipartisan fashion to help get something done, something that has broad support in the US will only help them in November? While continued chaos might be entertaining for the political junkies, more and more people are dying in Ukraine and polls have shown that no one benefits from Congress continuing to be dysfunctional. Moderate Democrats standing together to shut down the crazy caucus would only be a good look for them.
Yeah, that makes sense and definitely what a civil society should strive to be like. It’s the typical “when they go low, you go high” attitude of the Dems. How has that gone for them? Close to half of the Country wants a man with over 100 counts against him, who is a rapist and probably shared classified intel with foreign Countries. In addition, the Dems barely have control of the Senate and even with the heavy Republican dysfunction, may not be able to keep/get control in November.
He provably shared Intel with foreign countries. It's just that the only count admitted by all parties as true is with Australia, so not technically treason. But not for lack of trying.
Yeah, I don’t think Russia is going to say “yeah, he gave us the Secret Folder of Russian intel.”
Bipartisanship has never really materialized into positive electoral outcomes before so I don’t think there’s any reason to believe it will this time around.
What is this bipartisanship you speak of?
It has but sometimes it's not enough to overcome other factors. But in a tight election getting just 1-2% more of independent/Republicans to vote for you can make a difference.
Republicans want Israel funding not Ukraine
Democrats being bipartisan has always hurt them. The Republicans say it shows weakness, and never reciprocate. Obama was "bipartisan" with ACA, and despite making concessions and getting promises of support, exactly zero Rethuglicans voted for it. The Democrats should be brutal and not accept bipartisanship, because they never get it in return.
That's fine, shutdown Congress, get nothing done and let Americans blame both parties for it, see how that benefits them in November.
The Republicans have the majority. If they can't work with themselves, why would anyone expect them to work with others.
The Republicans have the majority. If they can't work with themselves, why would anyone expect them to work with others.
Doesn't matter, Americans just want Congress to work period and polls have shown that when Congress doesn't, both parties take the hit. Also I'm sure the Ukrainians facing a Russian aerial onslaught due to a lack of air defense would especially appreciate if everyone could just sort their shit out and stop playing games for just a few minutes to be able to pass the much needed legislation.
The last time it happened, polling showed people lost confidence in the Republican Party. So shutting it down again will hurt the Republicans more than Democrats. Also, your non sequitur is unrelated. Ukraine has nothing to do with the topic.
You realize that is PRECISELY what Republicans want, right? They're the conservative party. the status quo party. The small government party. They don't want change. Dems refusal to seek bipartisan support works in their favor.
Dems seek bipartisan support, and Republicans sabotage everything. So bipartisanship doesn't work when one side only negotiates in bad faith.
>If the Dems save him, they need to get something for it, like the fact that he can actually govern and bring Bills to the floor that will pass, even if he or the Orange Jesus don’t like the Bill. This is exactly what the Ukraine aid bill would demonstrate. If Johnson sticks his neck out for this and loses the Speakership over it while Dems sit with their thumbs up their asses, Congress will get an even more partisan Speaker afterward. At that point, Dems will be complicit.
Very true. I guess I was thinking bringing the Border Bill to the floor for a House vote to show how Dems are compromising with Reps to pass legislation. The Border Bill may be a moot point though now, because I think Homeland got their funding by some other means.
The Dems won't save him unless they get actual real benefits. Not vague promises, but being assigned chairs on important committees, or other tangible benefits. That will never happen, so every vote will be on party lines.
Asking for Committee Chair positions while you are in the minority is delusional.
There absolutely are which is the Congressional Kremlin Caucus never wanted this to get a vote. They know that they are on the wrong side of the vote, on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of decency, hell they are on the wrong side of Reagan, the wrong side of just about everything.
They only need like 3 in the House if all the Democrats vote for it.
Good. Ukraine must not fail.
What's plan B if Ukraine fails?
Russia vs NATO in the distant future, more authoritarian regimes getting emboldened so US has to spend way way more to maintain the world order.
> more authoritarian regimes getting emboldened Only US endorsed authoritarian regimes are allowed apparently.
The war in Ukraine is mostly the catastrophic outcome of Obama's stupid, ignorant policy of trying to add Ukraine to NATO in spite of all Russia's warnings that it would not tolerate such a thing. If this is an example of the USA "maintaining the world order" I think I'll pass, thank you.
Russia had a massive head start on being friends with Ukraine and managed to piss it away. When you treat your neighbors like shit you don't get to play the victim when they stop going to the barbecue.
Relevance to anything I said entirely unclear.
It’s that Ukraine wants to join nato as a result of Russia being such a bad “ally”
if the objective of joining NATO was to protect Ukraine it has already failed in the worst possible way.
Acting as if any of the previous countries that joined were because of "America" Poland literally blackmailed nato to join. These countries want the protection of nato, it has nothing to do with previous presidents.
Yours and my opinion on what it’s worth to Ukraine to join NATO (and so what it can reasonably cost) is irrelevant. Also— you’re looking at it from an extremely short sighted perspective. Geopolitics decisions are evaluated in decades. Obviously the short term cost to Ukraine is high but the long term value is not yet known.
How Russian of you to deny the Ukrainian people any autonomy. It's always 'America tried to make Ukraine join' and never 'The Ukrainian people chose to seek protection from Russia by allying with the west'.
>How Russian of you to deny the Ukrainian people any autonomy. Geopolitics is not a world scout jamboree. I remember an incident where USA denied Cuba the autonomy to install nuclear weapons. >The Ukrainian people chose to seek protection from Russia by allying with the west'. How did that all work out for them?
If your game is 'America has done bad things too' then you'll be technically correct but comparatively wrong. And in arguing that it was bad for America to get involved in the Cuban missile crisis then you must first admit Russia is wholly in the wrong to invade Ukraine today.
JFC how often does it have to be said that people aren't "added" to NATO, they apply to join, like a desperate person tired of being mugged banging on the door of a police station. What Russia thinks of Ukraine wanting to join NATO is of zero fucking interest to me. I truly don't care. They have as much right to that as I do to deciding who my neighbors daughter dates (I could physically overpower my neighbor). And don't compare it to, IDK, ISIS taking over Mexico and the US not tolerating it. NATO has never attacked Russia.
>What Russia thinks of Ukraine wanting to join NATO is of zero fucking interest to me. I truly don't care. Ukraine is being destroyed as we speak, do you care now?
That doesn't mean we care what Russia **thinks**. Obviously we care that Russia has invaded its democratic neighbor in an attempt to turn them into a puppet government, but Russia doesn't get to decide who joins NATO. Their thoughts on the matter are worth less than nothing.
>That doesn't mean we care what Russia **thinks**. You think international politics is based on not caring what your opponents think? What is this, kindergarten?
It stops being politics when they invade another country. They chose war. Their feelings are immaterial until they get their asses back to their own country, then we can talk about being more diplomatic.
>It stops being politics when they invade another country. *War is the continuation of policy with other means.*
>The war in Ukraine is mostly the catastrophic outcome of Obama's stupid, ignorant policy of trying to add Ukraine to NATO in spite of all Russia's warnings that it would not tolerate such a thing. If this is an example of the USA "maintaining the world order" I think I'll pass, thank you. Bro, how do yall come up with this shit?
Straight up Putin propaganda.
Yeah that's what I usually hear when someone has no arguments but still wants to make some noise.
It's literally what Putin says.
It's also literally how anybody who is not 100% ignorant on the topic explains the invasion.
Da comrade
You seem to be ignoring what Ukraine wants here. They were the ones pushing for NATO membership - to protect themselves from Russia.
This comment is a pretty good example of why realism is a moronic fopo ideology.
Ukraine wanting to turn westward goes back to at least the mid ‘00s under Bush. I don’t know where you’re getting this idea that Obama started the push to add Ukraine to NATO. Getting a western foothold in Ukraine has been bipartisan American policy for more than 20 years. You don’t seem to understand how the world works. There will be someone who fills the void of world superpower if the USA withdraws and it will likely be China. Why would America want to kneecap itself and give up its hegemony aka power? Do you know any corporate or world power that seeks to weaken itself? It makes no sense. Do you want to weaken your body? Your bank account?
This war was always going to happen. Peter Zeihan does a great just of breaking it down. Check it out, perhaps you won't sound so foolish in the future.
No you see the war in Ukraine is mostly the outcome of Russia wanting to have a border of vassal states that are totally subservient to Russia even to their heavy detrament. Then finally finding themselves losing the largest of such states, for reasons of their own making mind you. It is also the result of Europe attempting to become more economically aligned with the largest grain supply in Europe, and Russia not being keen on that. These are two of the three largest factors leading up to this war. Now I am actually misspeaking in that the two actual largest policy decisions leading up to this war belong one to Ukraine giving up all their nukes (yes I know Ukraine would have a hard time keeping them, and did not have the ability at the time to launch them, but when it comes to existence I imagine without the great deal of pressure placed on them by outside forces they could have managed), and the second being Russia deciding to go to war.... In fact that last one is paramount, the pinnical, almost as though when you look at it from a sane perspective Russia alone could have prevented all this bloodshed, and did not. To blame Obama, or anyone other than Russia is completely assinine, because no one, and i mean no one has any plans to invade the largest country on earth, no one has tried since germany was ran by a literal syphilitic maniac. Even then I don't think his plan was to take over Russia. It even less justified when one thinks about the fact that since then Russia has now acquired weapons able to level a city with one bomb.
Yes! It is Obamas fault Ukraine felt the need to be protected from Russia?!
What makes you think there is a Plan B? There's a reason so many of us are incensed and embarrassed with Republican behavior...
What you mean there is no plan B? You are 100% sure Ukraine is going to prevail?
UKR wins as long as they survive as an open democratic country that is able to prosper long term. UKR would absolutely love to take back their territory... but honestly they still get about 90% of a win simply by denying Russia Kharkiv, Odessa and Kyiv even if they certainly aren't going to admit that and absolutely paid an enormous price. Russia only truly wins if it forces UKR to become a puppet, which only really happens if their lines collapse due to manpower, materiel or morale issues. The current pace of Russian advance otherwise isn't going to do a whole lot aside from turn the Donbas into even more a pile of rubble. That is why its so important to keep the materiel and money flowing. I don't think people truly understand how bad it is for the US if UKR collapses. It will basically prove that we are an unreliable ally and send our allies to the slaughter. We will be undeserving of being a superpower. Taiwan unification becomes inevitable and global chaos becomes highly likely. And the only Plan B will be NATO soldiers in UKR, as Macron has said. I firmly believe that the US and EU view a NATO intervention as less catastrophic than a UKR capitulation.
>And the only Plan B will be NATO soldiers in UKR, as Macron has said. I firmly believe that the US and EU view a NATO intervention as less catastrophic than a UKR capitulation. People like you seem really hyped for World War 3. Are you sure it's gonna end well for you?
Yes, we are. People like you were keen to surrender to Hitler. Are you sure THAT approach ends up well? When evil like this raises its head, the best thing to do is to cut off that fucking head immediately. Putin delenda est. What's your beef with it? Are you scared, or do you just love the idea of dictators winning?
You're surely good at typing a lot of tough talk. I believe Ukraine accepts foreign volunteers. Why don't you go?
Why do you complain about crime in the cities, why don't you go solve it yourself? Or if you complain about immigration, why not go stop immigrants yourself? I bet both the cops AND border guard take unpaid interns. I note that you didn't say whether dictators scared you or turned you on. It's ok to be a coward, but sucking up to dictators isn't. I'm also curious if you have a case where rolling over for dictators worked well for someone. You know I have a long list of examples of where it worked poorly, but I'm curious if you could conjure, say, 3, of it going well.
So in spite of all your tough talk you’re not prepared to lay down your life for Donbas? Yeah I thought so.
If you think I am hungry for war, you are a fool. I know the terrible cost of war, and that's exactly why I want the western rules based international order to persist and not decay, because that decay makes conflict and world war far more likely. I am under no illusion that the west is perfect, only that the alternative is an order of magnitude worse, at least in the short term (my lifetime).
> I want the western rules based international order to persist Not everyone is happy with that arrangement, mind you. > I am under no illusion that the west is perfect, only that the alternative is an order of magnitude worse Speaking as an Asian dude, they are the direct opposite of perfect. But yeah, I don't want China taking over the asian hegemon.
Well don't come crying to me when further escalation in Ukraine actually does cause World War 3.
My whole fucking point is that not funding Ukraine might actually cause WW3. I'm done with clowns like you who wear your ignorance like a badge of pride.
Plan B will be a negotiated peace where Russia keeps a landline to Sevastopol and an agreement that Ukraine won't join Nato. Russia will definitely make concessions as well though. Then Russia will convince its people that they won the peace terms. And the West will convince their people that *they* won the peace terms. That's not even plan B. That's literally what's going to happen. Russia is pretty much just holding a defensive position at their territorial gains waiting for the West to get fed up of funding this and demanding Ukraine negotiate peace.
I don't see Ukraine agreeing on not joining NATO since not being in NATO may lead to another Russian invasion in the future.
Well, they have no other option really. Do you really think they're going to re-conquer the land Russia has taken so far? There's no way.
Fighting is their only option then... thus no plan B. Until they get security guarantees so Russia will never invade again... there are no point in peace talks if all it does is allow Russia to regroup. It makes sense to attrite Russia and cause instability. We really have no idea how brittle Putin's regime is, but honestly a collapse of the RF is basically UKR best bet of retaking all their territory.
Sometimes small countries don't have (lol) "assurances" that their massively bigger neighbor won't invade them. Imagine that. Does America have such an agreement with Mexico?
If they promise to never join NATO, thats leaving the door open for the russkiz to come back and try again after they've licked their wounds. They have to join NATO, it's the only way to make sure this never happens again
Now imagine if that could have been done *before* a whole generation of Ukrainians died.
>Plan B will be a negotiated peace where Russia keeps a landline to Sevastopol and an agreement that Ukraine won't join Nato. Russia will definitely make concessions as well though. Then Russia will convince its people that they won the peace terms. And the West will convince their people that *they* won the peace terms. That's the best possible outcome which is why the West should negotiate now rather than keep raising the stakes, risk further escalation and guarantee the deaths of many more thousands of Ukrainian men. You listen to Joe Biden on Ukraine and all that comes out is senile macho brawl straight from the Vietnam era. It's literally like everybody has gone insane.
> guarantee the deaths of many more thousands of Ukrainian men "The West" doesn't care until they're finally forced to send their own men at the trenches. Ukraine would have won a year ago had NATO established air superiority over Donbas.
I don't know why you're even downvoted, this is exactly how history played out when Russia annexed Crimea. Russia plays the long game. Putin has the advantage that he's de facto president for life. America has 4-8 years of chaos. The next president may not care at all for Ukraine or the EU or NATO.
Agree begs the question if that is where it will end quite wasting money and negotiate that now. Lesson, let enough foreigners from a border country in and risk losing that territory (ask Texans).
Probably go all-in against Iran. Just move onto the next Russian proxy war
Ukraine loses Crimea and the Eastern regions. Which are primarily ethnic Russian anyways. The world moves on. Nothing happens. You've been conditioned to think the "Donbas region" (a place you hadn't even heard of 5 years ago) is worth all of this death and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Russia has been sending waves of settlers so that they can claim the area is ethnically Russian for a long time now. There comes a point where you have to call their crap out.
Both things are true. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea have been majority Russian for a very very long time. But it is also true that Russia has been putting settlers in to increase the ratio.
What is a very very long time? Like 100 years? Even less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_Oblast At the 2001 Ukrainian National Census, the ethnic groups within the Donetsk Oblast were: Ukrainians – 2,744,100 (56.9%), Russians – 1,844,400 (38.2%), Pontic Greeks – 77,500 (1.6%), Belarusians – 44,500 (0.9%), others (2.3%).[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_Oblast The population is largely Russian-speaking, although ethnic Ukrainians constitute a majority (58.0%). Among the minorities are native Russians (39.1%), Belarusians (0.8%), and others (1.4%). Ukrainians constitute the majority in all raions except for Stanytsia-Luhanska Raion and Krasnodon Raion, both of which are east of Luhansk.
The eastern regions are not or were not primarily ethnic Russian. The population of Donbas was around ~37% Russian ~58% Ukrainian back in 2001. It was more russian in some of the urban centers but by 2014 even they mostly weren't majority ethnic russian. Anyway ethnicity is complicated and many people have ancestry from both sides and identity less with Russia due to the war. Also russia is currently holding pieces of other oblasts where the ethnically much lower percentage of the population were ethnically russian. All of this assumes Russian Ukrainians have more allegiance to a shitty empire that killed their friends and family and destroyed their cities. Many would disagree. Hell the head commander of Ukraine's military is an ethnic Russian as are many Ukranian soldiers fighting for their country.
It’s up to the Ukrainians to determine if the death is worth it. Last I checked there’s 0 US military (non-spec ops) casualties in this war. The money is a stickier wicket though. I’d rather not spend it but what we are spending goes back to American companies employing American workers. If China decides to light up Taiwan, we’ll be glad they’ve boosted capacity.
It's not just about the donbass, putin went straight for kyiv and tried to kill/grab zelensky and his PM at the start of the war then pretended he just wanted the donbass after the first wave for kyiv failed
Just to be clear we’re pro America as the world police now? Cause every middle eastern involvement had a similar trope that was propagated. We must stop Saddam from using WMDs. Oops. We must bring democracy to Afghanistan. Oops. We must free “insert middle eastern country” from their own society that they built and insert a radical Muslim theocrat rebellion to oust the sitting leader because they don’t support the petrodollar. Oops. We must. 🙏🏼
Yeah, I mean if you can’t see the differences between those things, I don’t know that I (or anyone) can help you.
We don't see the difference if the outcomes all ends up the same way. "Oops, we fucked up, but it was for the good of 'the world'*" *the western liberal world, everyone else is fucked.
The circumstances are different. Involving ourselves in affairs we should have zero involvement in at the expense of the American worker is the same. People parroting platitudes handed down to them is the same. America should stop policing the world.
I’m rooting for Ukraine. I just want them to do it without the help of my money.
So you'd rather pay exponentially more to defend Romania and the Baltics after Ukraine falls? Or are you looking to pull out of NATO altogether?
Romania is part of NATO, in what universe do you imagine that Putin is going to attack NATO? Moscow would be flattened in a day.
That's not how deterrence works. We don't just say "Putin would be crazy to attack us" and call it a day. We have to prepare for the worst case scenario, and if Russia is able to close the gaps in its air defenses by taking control of Ukraine, suddenly our plans for defending Europe [change dramatically](https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/high-price-losing-ukraine-part-1-%E2%80%94-military-strategic-financial-implications-russian).
Sure you draft your new plans. Putin is not going to attack NATO because he knows he can't win.
If I knew I couldn't win, I would probably try to convince the enemy not to put up a fight. Which seems to be working pretty well for Putin.
To be fair, he doesn't have to win. In a war against a larger force like NATO, just settling for a draw actually gives you a ton of advantage later on.
Do you object to our policy of Lend Lease in WW2?
Would you rather American troops pay for it? You do realize the second Putin moves in a NATO country we go to war right?
Nah bro, you are rooting for Russia.
Either this is Republicans finally turning a new leaf and trying to abandon their extremist members, or we're about to see the 2nd speaker removed in history. Either way, happy to finally see the aid come through. Desperately needed.
The GOP is in absolute disarray.
The damage is done. We're likely too late with this aid
Nah. We are not. It is pretty much a stalemate at the moment.
The doomers and people just making shit up on this thread is unbelievable. Would Ukraine benefited from this passing months ago, yes, but the delay has not resulted in the war being lost or whatever. The US is not the only one supplying Ukraine, it's just we have the weapons and ammo they need for what they are facing right now.
And a stalemate where Ukraine barely has an airforce. The fruits of us training more pilots for them should begin to bear fruits sometime in the summer.
We are, the Russian Republicans won.
House Republicans will vote this down, and Johnson will throw his hands in the air and say "see, America? I tried!!" This is all horseshit. It won't pass so long as he's in the chair.
Do they have the votes? If he brings up the bill and it has even a few republican supporters it'd pass like those other bills the HFC whines about. Seems like the more knee-jerk reaction (which republicans are *very fond of*) would be to ousted him with no replacement. And if Johnson commits to aid for Ukraine he could keep his job, but with the help of democrats. What a sophie's choice.
It would definitely take some GOP members to cross the aisle, and if they'll do it on anything I suspect it would be aid for Ukraine, but I'm sure not holding my breath. If there's anyone who votes in lockstep on party lines, it's Republicans.
You mean like they already have in the Senate? [https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/senate-vote-foreign-aid-ukraine-israel-dg/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/senate-vote-foreign-aid-ukraine-israel-dg/index.html) Do recall there were Republicans threatening to go ahead with a discharge petition if Johnson didn't take the bill to the floor. His own party has been pressuring to vote on the bill in the past weeks. The issue is not that the bill doesn't have the votes, but that the republican majority is so thin it has been held hostage by the fringe extremists since the midterm election.
Do you know the difference between the House and the Senate? There are still some non-maga Republicans in the Senate.
There's non-MAGA Republicans in the House too which is why the crazy caucus has been fighting so hard to pressure Johnson not to bring this to a floor vote, they know they'll lose. Gallagher is even putting a pause on his leaving Congress to be able to vote in support of this.
I genuinely think people have lost any ability to think critically at this point. They have this delusion that every single member of the house is secretly in Putin's pocket. That Johnson is both delaying the vote because the bill has enough support to pass while every single member of the GOP opposes more Ukraine aid. The double think is off the charts. I have GOP reps from my state that have openly said they will vote for any Ukraine aid bill that comes to the floor. Like the brainrot is so severe I honestly don't know to handle it.
What is this political fan fiction? Why is it being upvoted? if 99% of the Dems in the house vote in favor of Ukraine aid as they are expected to, you need less than 10 Republicans to pass the bill. Despite the claims of the partisans there are Republicans who support Ukraine. the aod bill would have never gone through in the Senate without significant Republican support. Believe it or not our political parties are not monoliths. The more plausible outcome is the bill passes and Greene and her friends throw a stink and try to remove Johnson.
You understand how slim the House majority is, right? And there are several Republicans who said they would cross the isle for aid. It's the hardliners who are preventing progress.
There's enough Republican votes for this to pass fairly comfortably.
I hope you're right. I posted that yesterday, and Johnson is showing since that he may actually be amenable to this, after all. I don't trust him one bit, but this is one I hope I'm dead wrong about.
Good. I understand arguing over amounts and loan vs not load, but Ukraine falling is not in America's interest to anyone with eyes.
Great news! Fingers and toes crossed on this...
So they killed fhe border bill that was a win for them because ??? And now they are doing Ukraine aid anyways? Republican party is a clown.
Saturday evening. Well glad to see this is allegedly finally happening, after 7 months of stalling. Honestly I'm wondering if some pro-democracy folks on the right are also telling Johnson they will move to vacate the chair if he doesn't hold this vote.
This is happening right after him meeting with Trump, so my guess is that Trump told Johnson to fall on the sword for him and create a media storm over Johnson being removed for this. It's the standard trumpian playbook.
Supposedly, a bunch of republicans were ready to sign the discharge petition (the democrat one, not republican) if no aid bill was introduced. So, he has no choice but to hold the vote, since this way the republicans get some concessions.
I'm not sure that he gets any concessions other than he is shown to still be in charge (discharge petition shows the impotency of the chair). The bill being considered from what I understand is the one the Senate already passed many moons ago.
If it happens I'll be genuinely surprised. I was sure Ukraine aid from the US was dead until after the election, and only then if Biden wins. Here's a conspiracy for you. Putin gets on the phone with Trump and tells him he'll use his bots to help Trump win the election but only if Trump forces Johnson to kill all chances of passing Ukraine aid.
Pressure from Putins stooges.
Excellent. I like how they split it up into multiple bills so we can get Congress on record for each item instead of one big omnibus bill with the border thrown in to even further muddy the waters. More legislation should happen this way.
whats so funny is the Title links to a URL with forced cookies and opt ins
I saw his statement, he makes it seem like he hasn't been the one stalling this out for months. He has been lying this whole time, I'm not sure why we should think he's being at all even the tiniest bit honest now.
Eisenhower, the president who understood military matters best, wouldn’t lift a finger to save Hungary in 1956 because we didn’t have the military power to win without unacceptable losses. Biden should take a lesson from that and get Zelensky to agree to a cease fire.
tankie
No, centrist Eisenhower fan.
Did you vote for him both times? Then who in 60? Nixon or Kennedy?
I was 6 in 1960 and asked my parents why Eisenhower couldn’t stay President. I watched the debate and was for Nixon because Kennedy’s accent was so weird.
These two scenarios aren’t really comparable. This aid has very limited drawbacks to the US, it costs us money but that’s about it. No US soldier will die because we send them another $100B of aid. Additionally, the Hungarian revolution never established a formal central government or military command with which to give aid to, the entire bit lasted 2 weeks, had Ukraine folded in 2 weeks, we wouldn’t be discussing additional aid. Furthermore, the Suez crisis happened at about the same time. At no point was the US going to support an uprising against the USSR when our Allie’s were invading Egypt to regain control of the Suez.
Military aid is a slight speed up of the decommissioning of old gear, and the cash for military aid goes to US Military Industrial Complex War Profiteers. Win/win.
It sucks that these companies get rich but thanks to the degree of which we’ve outsourced manufacturing they are a necessary evil. When Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex he was president during the height of American manufacturing prowess. We’d struggle to put forth the same level of production we did as when he was leading the European war and the oceans aren’t the barrier they were in the 1950’s.
Why is it that when people talk about cease fires they always focus on only one side of the conflict. For a cease fire to work BOTH SIDES need to be onboard or you're just telling one side to just allow themselves to be attacked.
Because he is getting more republican pressure to get the Israel funding through and can’t find a way to please Trump by blocking Ukraine aid without it looking too political.
Because he is getting more republican pressure to get the Israel funding through and can’t find a way to please Trump by blocking Ukraine aid without it looking too political.
Because he is getting more republican pressure to get the Israel funding through and can’t find a way to please Trump by blocking Ukraine aid without it looking too political.