why does America have to do everything? the EU will be far more negatively impacted if Russia wins (energy, food, trade in general) - why arent the EU member states doing more?
Read some history and find out why the US is called the arsenal of Democracy.
Because America spent a lot of time trading security for political points. Nobody is interested in having given the points and now also have to do the security.
In recent years EU countries have been growing their armies and relying less on America, but nobody is ready to fight Russia. If America actually started withdrawing its promises and overseas assets, europe would wake up; but america doesn’t want that.
What are political points?
EU should be heavily investing in this war… unless they already decided the fate of ukraine and are letting the efforts against Russia to stall. Each country is different anyway, some have to balance arm exports with the reaction of the people political support, others may be fearing a future escalation of the war if Ukraine ends collapsing and prefer to arm themselves.
Just as the efforts to achieve net zero emissions: its all just acting, nobody will move a finger when the moment of action comes.
I really hope Europe can step up to fill America’s gap, because it’s clear that America will not get its shit together in time to help at this point, if it ever will again.
Only France is willing to fight. The rest of Europe are terrified of Putin. They will give Putin whatever he wants.
Why would France want to fight? They’re the biggest customer.
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-talk-tough-ukraine-while-gobble-up-more-russia-gas/
JFC. Well. I guess Putin can have Europe if he wants it then. The U.S. is being held down by conservatives, so we all get to watch Putin murder our allies.
There is no such thing as a “good conservative” alive today. Conservatism is a cancer. It is killing us all.
Biden should go around congress to ship them weapons.
Can’t buy weapons without money.
The US and our allies cannot produce weapons at a rate faster than Russia does with 10% of the budget. Increasing our military budget further is going to make our national security situation worse
We will receive the Ukrainian ladies with open arms into our countries. Once they decide to migrate, of course 🧐🧐🧐🐈
What the fuck if wrong with you?
Issue is, they’ll be taken as war trophies by the Russians.
Fucking Russians. Ruining everything
You’re disgusting. Instead of worrying about the plight of millions you and your buddy here decide to objectify women who have lost their fathers, brothers, husbands and friends to a horrific war.
You disgust me.
That wasn’t my intention, however the realities of this war point in that direction.
This is sending a giant red flag to America’s allies: we will not support you in times of war, do not rely on us since we will drop you whenever it is politically convenient to do so.
Sadly, this shouldn’t be the case and it’s indicating an abdication of responsibility in being the Arsenal of Democracy for the free world.
Not really.
Look at Israel.
Europe better start their own version of NATO.
The primary difference is defense industrial policy and production capacity.
That is nothing new, look at Afghanistan.
Its Biden’s job to move the country in terms of rhetoric. You move the country and the elected representatives will follow. They want to stay elected. He’s failed utterly, in this regard.
The country agrees with Biden.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/643601/americans-say-not-helping-ukraine-enough.aspx
The country didn’t put Republicans in charge of the House. Gerrymandering did.
You take the big seat and you have to play cards with the hand you are dealt. The buck stops there.
Biden is the president. Not the House, not the Senate, not Trump. What you are saying when you make your point is that the Republicans are actually in control of the presidency and that Biden doesn’t bear responsibility for the outcomes of his leadership (or lack there of).
Either the buck stops with the President or it doesn’t. Excusing Biden’s inability to lead isn’t an acceptable answer. That’s the job of leadership. To change minds, especially those who don’t agree with them. Blaming Republicans gives Biden cover for his lack of leadership, and the material fact that he isn’t able to drive a narrative, or to whip congress or the American people or international leadership towards an end. That’s the job of the president, and the buck stops with them. It doesn’t pass to any one else. The buck stops at the desk in the oval office.
So the question I would put back to you, is does the buck stop with the President or not?
For reference, here is the wiki on the phrase. You might read it for some consideration and context.
Yes, I know what the phrase means and the history of it.
That doesn’t mean that Biden is a dictator. He can’t just say, “fuck you, congress. We’re sending aid to Ukraine.”
That’s simply not how things work in the U.S. government.
Just because a racist, genocidal shitbag like Harry S. Truman said a phrase doesn’t make it true.
You know what buck didn’t stop with Truman? Acknowledging the lack of civil rights of millions of American citizens and acknowledging his culpability in the nuclear annihilation of two Japanese cities, beginning a nuclear arms race that has put humanity at the risk of destruction multiple times since.
So maybe he was a hypocritical asshole and you shouldn’t look to him for things presidents should be able to do.
I don’t think you actually understand the phrase or appreciate its significance in terms of what it means for leadership. Why don’t you actually address the primacy of the point that I made?
Do you consider the President responsible for the outcomes of their tenure or not?
You seem insistent in an interpretation that doesn’t leave Biden culpable for the outcomes of his time as President. But that’s not how leadership works. The buck stops with you when you are in the big seat. Whether you are passing the buck in terms of the outcomes of this four years from Biden to congress, or Biden to the Supreme Court, or Biden to the American people, or Biden to Russia, that’s just not how the world works. A Republican congress wont be voted out of office because they stymied Biden’s efforts: they’ll be rewarded for it. Its Biden’s job to break through these kinds of issues; that’s the role of a President.
Making excuses for Biden, repeatedly, incessantly, it doesn’t change the fact that ultimately this election coming up is a referendum on his time in leadership and what he has to show for it. Biden understand what the phrase means when he said “The Buck stops with me on Afghanistan”, maybe you should take the time to develop that understanding as well.
If the buck stops with Biden on Afghanistan (his words, not ours), does it not also stop with him on Ukraine?
Do you consider the President responsible for the outcomes of their tenure or not?
When congress and the judiciary is working against them? Not.
Are you going to blame Biden for the conservative majority on the Supreme court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson as well?
You seem insistent in an interpretation that doesn’t leave Biden culpable for the outcomes of his time as President. But that’s not how leadership works. The buck stops with you when you are in the big seat.
So the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution is not a thing and Biden has the unilateral power to do whatever he likes. Gotcha.
All that’s clear from your response is that you don’t appreciate the role of leadership and how it works.
Leadership doesn’t get to pass on responsibility. It doesn’t matter if its a conservative SC or you don’t have congress in your favor. The deck being stacked against you doesn’t mean you get a pass. What it means is you have to come up with a different way of getting the job done. You have to be clever and strategic and get around obstacles. Every leader has to deal with these things, the job of leadership is to figure out ways to overcome these things. A leader who passes the buck on the responsibility for the outcomes of their tenure is no leader at all. By deferring responsibility, you are making the point that Biden is a weak leader incapable of overcoming adversity. If that’s the case, why should any one vote for them?
You should meditate on that phrase and look at it in historical context. Your desire that Biden not be considered responsible for his tenure is just… its not how the world works. Defending Biden’s weakness isn’t having the effect you think it should, rather, it highlights how ineffectual he’s been as President and that he may not really be qualified for the role.
and the Democrats held a majority in congress for enough time to get a national right to an abortion into congress,
At what point did pro-choice Democrats hold that majority?
At what point could any of the previous Democratic presidents in the last 30 years have gotten a Supreme Court majority?
You should meditate on that phrase and look at it in historical context.
I gave you the context. The context was that it was said by a president who committed genocide and sat on his ass when it came to most civil rights issues.
Weird that I brought those two things up and you don’t seem to believe the buck stopped with him on them.
Are you going to blame Biden for the conservative majority on the Supreme court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson as well?
Do me a favor and google “Anita Hill”. Then google what the chair of the senate judiciary does
So Biden confirmed Clarence Thomas because he knew that decades later, he would be president and the president before him would confirm three ultra-conservative justices so that he could avoid culpability when they overthrew Roe v. Wade? Is that what you’re claiming?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The shortages forced Kyiv’s military to withdraw from a key eastern city in February, and with no progress in Washington, Ukrainian soldiers are now desperately trying to hold on to their positions along some 600 miles of the front line.
Ukrainian leaders, backed up by Western officials, are pushing Republicans to break the logjam before it is too late, fearing the Kremlin could seek to take advantage by launching a new offensive over the summer or sooner.
He told Congress that Ukraine will run out of artillery shells and air defense interceptors “in fairly short order” without new U.S. support, leaving it vulnerable to a partial or total defeat.
Russia has turned its attention back to Ukraine’s energy grid, striking key facilities in missile and drone attacks that have exploited a shortage of air defense systems across the country.
Zelenskyy said last week he was still hopeful for a “positive vote” in Congress, and even suggested that Kyiv would be willing to get the aid in the form of a loan rather than a handout, an idea floated by House Republicans that seemingly originated with Trump.
Just six months out from the U.S. election, the possibility that Trump could cut off Ukraine completely or try to force it to cede territory as part of a truce deal with Russia may be focusing minds in Kyiv.
The original article contains 1,504 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 85%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I bet as people die, the amount of weapons needed to fight Russia increases. There will be a point of no return.
Nearly every country dragged its heels.
RepubliQans! MFrs
Well at least the US was able to aid the genocide in Gaza. I’m sure none of this will backfire.
Yep. Strange how Biden was able to figure out how to get weapons to Israel without congressional approval and against the wishes of people he’s depending on to get re-elected but can’t use that same brain power of his to help Ukraine.
I don’t understand why Israel needs so much money. They’re not a poor country.
Evangelicals think they need to trigger the apocalypse manually, part of it would involve all Jews returning to Israel.
Interesting. But where is “Israel”? It’s all made up. The Kingdom of Judah?
They see they can get it, so they do.
This is actually a fair question. To answer it fairly, wars are extraordinarily expensive.
Remember in the first Captain America movie, how Cap starts off as a showman, trying to sell war bonds to the American public? This bit of the movie is rooted in real history, the government actually did that, just to raise money to help pay for WW2. War bonds are basically just savings bonds, where the govt goes to its citizens and says “give me $100 now to help pay for the war, and we’ll pay you back with interest in a few years”.
Israel has fewer borrowing opportunities than the massive US did, though, so it’s a little harder.
Even Russia’s war, relying on huge backstocks of Soviet equipment, is very expensive, and they saved up a huge amount of money over many years to be able to do what they are doing right now.
They don’t need to save up, they get billions from Europe for oil
Regardless of level of need, they did. They began the war with a gigantic war chest saved up. Hard to say what its at now, just about no level of income can pay for the level of expenditure a large, full-scale modern war requires.
As conservatives cheer. Conservatives did this. Your conservative neighbors, co-workers, family members and acquaintances… They all did this.
That pov only has value inside of america. This is a two sided sword, conservatives acted against it, democrats didnt do enough, and from outside, america choosed to let ukraine rot.
Thinking retrospectively, It’s a good thing that they stoped their counteroffensive last year and ended up distributing forces in the multiple fronts.
No they didn’t.
Not only did they do this, they continue to do so. Because many Republicans in Congress are funded by dirty Russian money. Traitors all that should be tried for treason. And the ring leader in the clown car is the worst of all.
