Posts by Maria Moore

Christian Torres3 said:
Biden signs government funding Bill that includes $ 13.6 billion in Ukraine aid

President Joe Biden signed a funding bill to keep the government running through September and send $13.6 billion in aid to Ukraine.
The money for Ukraine will go both to helping refugees fleeing Russia ’ and to defensive equipment and training for the country’s military.

The devil is in the details, as always. CNN goes into more detail here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/p...bus/index.html

"The new funding will provide additional humanitarian, security and economic assistance for Ukraine and allies in The region.
Roughly half of The aid Package will be used to deploy troops to The region and send defense equipment to Ukraine, according to a summary of the bill provided by the House Appropriations Committee.
The US Has deployed thousands of troops throughout Europe , both before and during Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But putting troops on the ground in Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, is a line that the US and its western allies have not been willing to Cross.
Much of The other half of The aid will providjeti humanitarian support for refugees fleeing Ukraine and People displaced within The country , including emergency food assistance , as well as Help to respond to The economic needs in Ukraine and neighboring countries, such as cybersecurity and energy issues."

So, that $13.6 billion USD total package covers everything—support for all NATO members (like extra troop deployments in Eastern Europe), plus humanitarian aid for refugees. Only about $800 million USD of that is actually direct weapons aid for Ukraine.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/p...ine/index.html

But honestly, that isn't even the big question. What I'm actually wondering about is where the US promised to fund everyone else's donations. I highly doubt the USA is going to write checks to Norway, Sweden, Germany, United Kingdom, and the rest to cover the cost of the weapons they've sent over to Ukraine.

Christian Torres3 said:So what, they voted for like, 12 or 13 billion dollars in aid for Ukraine? Most of the weapons going there aren't even donations—the USA is footing the bill!

Congress actually approved $800 million for weaponry, plus another $200 million for other stuff, and there's still an extra $500 million being debated. All told, we're talking way less than that 12 or 13 billion figure.
I haven't seen anyone claim that the US pays for weapons that aren't direct donations. Got a link for that?

Christian Torres3 said:You've got it wrong. The US economy isn't some isolated island; if things tank in the European Union, it's going to hit us hard too.

Foreign trade only makes up about 4% of the US GDP. Plus, we have our own oil and gas right here at home, so we won't deal with the massive shortages or production shutdowns they're facing over in the European Union.
On the flip side, the US will obviously deal with some turbulence in the global commodities and energy markets—since prices are set on global exchanges, they're often driven by pure speculation—which is bound to trigger inflation and market chaos. For instance, I heard an economic analyst on CNN last night saying there’s actually plenty of oil available right now; the price hikes on the exchanges are just a reaction to geopolitical instability rather than any actual drop in supply.
Eventually, the markets will settle down, and in the meantime, the US might even come out ahead by ramping up gas exports and, let's not forget, selling weapons to both Ukraine and the European Union.

Christian Torres3 said:Converting dollars to rubles? The Russians set the exchange rate. That’s where they get you.

I agree there’s probably a catch somewhere. But if the Ruble has actually stabilized this much, it might not be the massive scam people think it is.
To me, this whole setup looks like a way to make sure everyone gets a little slice of the pie. Basically, buyers from "unfriendly nations" pay in Euros, while the Russians get their hands on the cash in Rubles. It keeps both sides happy on paper.
That’s why I find the European Union's refusal to accept this model so baffling. If they cut off the gas, they aren't just looking at massive inflation—they're staring down a recession. We're talking full-blown stagflation.

Germany is going to take the biggest hit here. But let's not forget that Germany is the engine driving the entire European Union since they're the top importers and exporters. If the German economy tanks, the whole European Union goes down with it.

Honestly, I get the feeling the European Union is currently stuck in that "I don't care if my house burns down as long as the neighbor's does too" mindset. And they're doing it all under pressure from the USA, who will obviously be just fine no matter what happens to everyone else's "house."

bluemason3 said:True, though various journalists citing administration sources have suggested they aren't announcing everything just to avoid tipping our hand to Russian tactics.

By the way, if it turns out that drone was actually Russian and just got diverted, does that mean Ukraine has electronic warfare tech capable of jamming them?

I think the administration isn't even trying to hide their hand anymore.

Look at this map. It’s gut-wrenching. You can see the lines moving, the territory shifting, and you realize just how much is actually happening on the ground right now. People talk about "strategic shifts" like they're playing a game of Risk, but seeing the actual movement makes it feel heavy. It's one thing to read a headline; it's another to watch the front lines crawl across a map in real-time. Everything feels incredibly volatile.

The Department of Defense isn't kidding around—according to Intel Ronald Moultrie tells HASC Subcommittee on Intelligence and special Operations, the whole "US Intel sharing with Ukraine" thing is actually moving the needle. He’s calling it accurate, timely, and most importantly, actionable. Basically, they're getting exactly what they need from us, and they're happy about it.

Maria Moore said:"The President of the USA announced an additional $800 million in security assistance for Ukraine. This brings the total aid announced just last week to one billion dollars."
"The military aid package will include anti-tank projectiles and more defensive weaponry already provided by the US, including Javelin anti-armor missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles."
"The new package also includes 9,000 anti-tank systems. These are high-precision shoulder-fired missiles that Ukrainian forces have used with massive success to take out attacking tanks and armored vehicles. It will also include 7,000 small arms—machine guns, rifles, and grenade launchers—to equip the Ukrainians, including the brave men and women defending their cities and rural areas," said Biden.

You really need to add this statement to the mix:
https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/16-mar...d-intelligence

"We are actively sharing information and intelligence with the Ukrainians that we believe can be helpful to them in their fight every day - and by helpful, I mean helpful," the senior U.S. defense official said

As another official put it, US intelligence agencies are sharing satellite imagery and other reconnaissance footage from planes that fly over Poland and Romania 24/7. They’re mapping out the entire battlefield with pinpoint GPS coordinates on Russian armored movements. This is what lets the Ukrainian military use Bayraktar drones and man-portable anti-tank weapons to absolutely wreck Russian tank units.

bluemason3 said:The US has tightened up how much they share with the public regarding weapon shipments, so the real question is just how much more we'll actually find out about what's being sent over there.

"The President of the USA announced an additional $800 million in security assistance for Ukraine. This brings the total aid announced just last week to one billion dollars."
"The military aid package will include anti-tank projectiles and more defensive weaponry already provided by the US, including Javelin anti-armor missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles."
"The new package also includes 9,000 anti-tank systems. These are high-precision shoulder-fired missiles that Ukrainian forces have used with massive success to take out attacking tanks and armored vehicles. It will also include 7,000 small arms—machine guns, rifles, and grenade launchers—to equip the Ukrainians, including the brave men and women defending their cities and rural areas," said Biden.

"Any nation that gives Ukraine the green light to use its airfields to launch strikes against Russia should be considered a direct combatant," a spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Defense claimed today, specifically calling out Romania for allowing those landings.

Quote from the article:
"Most people couldn't care less about the losses suffered by greedy bankers, but don't let populism cloud your judgment: this is largely about the retirement savings of ordinary folks like you and me, which are managed by investment funds.
...
And so, millions of small investors from countries that have sided with Ukraine are paying a very real price for these sanctions. In fact, you’re probably one of those lucky people—a collateral victim of Russian aggression. Even if you aren't one of the few adventurers who somehow developed a crush on Russian stocks, remember that every single American, without exception, indirectly invests in global capital markets through mandatory pension funds.
...
Suddenly, we've all found ourselves in a fascinating spot: even though we've already done our part to resist the Russian invasion—implicitly agreeing that the government can sacrifice a slice of our savings—the economic devastation of Russia isn't actually helping us. The destructive fallout from economic sanctions (on both sides) is systematically eroding the value of our savings, following that old, proven historical lesson: there are no winners in war, only bigger and smaller losers."

The head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, actually suggested that Americans might need to turn down their thermostats to help out. It's part of this 10-point plan to stop relying so much on Russian gas. According to the IEA, if every building in the US dropped the heat by just one degree Celsius, we could save about 10 billion cubic meters of gas.

Julius Domac, the President's special advisor on energy and crisis management, sat down for an interview on N1.

His main point? Experts have been screaming for years that relying on Russian gas was a massive mistake. "All of Europe lived under this illusion that energy is just another market commodity where everyone plays by the rules. It's not. Energy is a strategic weapon," he said.

"Gas prices are going up, and they could hit levels we haven't even dreamed of."
“We’re going to be dealing with gas issues for years. Replacing Russian supply isn't cheap. Prices will climb—we could see them hitting insane heights, maybe even 2000 euros per cubic meter. That kind of spike triggers massive inflation and wrecks agriculture,” Domac warned.

He pointed out that while we need to pivot to renewables, there's no magic switch. “Time is the one factor we can't control right now.” He didn't hold back on our past failures either, citing disastrous mistakes in domestic gas production and the slow rollout of green energy.

And it's not just gas; oil prices are also spiraling.

“Russia produces a massive amount of oil, but sanctions are choking those sales. This whole energy situation is purely geopolitical, and that means it can be manipulated. In this scenario, the USA is making a killing. It’s all politics,” he noted, adding that predicting the endgame is nearly impossible right now.

“Europe underestimated the situation by relying too much on handshakes.”
“The only real financial winner of this war is the USA,” he claimed. “Europe completely misjudged the situation by thinking they could just rely on diplomatic agreements.”

He believes the old mantra of the global market—that everything is up for sale—is dead. “Energy isn't some luxury you choose to buy or not. You have to secure it, or you don't have it.”

Blinken speaking in Brussels today:
"Asked by CNN whether the US is considering energy sanctions against Russia, Blinken said "nothing is off the table" - but added that it is not in the US interest to cut the global energy supply, as this would send the price of oil surging."

So Blinken’s basically saying it’s not in the USA's best interest to slap sanctions on Russian oil and gas imports!
What about the EU?

crimsonwolf26 said:Honestly, it feels like Germans just swing from one extreme to the other. One minute they were looking to dominate all of Europe, and now they want to act like none of this affects them at all—as if they can just stay completely untouched by everything happening right in their backyard.🤣

It’s actually because of their history that Germany has it baked right into their Constitution—they aren't supposed to send troops abroad or sell weapons to war zones. There is a loophole, though, where they can do it if Parliament gives the green light. And yeah, we've seen exceptions before (like sending troops to Afghanistan, even if they didn't go to Iraq, and they have sold arms to conflict zones). But honestly, since the days of the USSR, every single one of their governments has been incredibly hesitant. It’s not easy to get a majority in Parliament to agree to that kind of stuff. A German Chancellor just doesn't have the same level of foreign policy muscle that an American or French president carries.
Then there's the whole issue of them being totally hooked on Russian gas. These sanctions are going to hit them almost as hard as they hit Russia. But let's not forget: Germany is a massive player in global trade and basically the engine driving growth for all of Europe and the US. If their economy tanks, we're all going down with them.

Noah Perez5 said:Live invasion map:

https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/26-feb...-whole-morning

It’s quite fascinating to look at, especially since I seem to recall seeing a different map on the news yesterday that suggested Russia had secured a significantly larger amount of territory.

It looks like the Russians aren't even obsessed with holding ground; they just want a fast break straight to Kyiv. Even CNN and Fox News are reporting that they've practically surrounded the city already.

https://www.nytimes.com/news/ukraine-war-updates-15163143

"The goal for Russian forces is to encircle Kyiv. They’re using the same tactics they’re applying elsewhere in Ukraine. Basically, one of Russia's biggest priorities is avoiding street fighting in Ukrainian cities," explains military analyst Robert Barić to The New York Times.

Quotes from a Canadian journalist's article:
Maybe I was like you—clinging to the hope that we could actually dodge this war. That diplomacy would win out, sparing even more innocent people from the inevitable pain, suffering, humiliation, and pure horror caused by small men with massive armies.
The "analysts" and the rest of us were dead wrong. So, yeah, it looks like hope is gone again. This is just the price of yet another stupid, pointless war started by some petty little guy with a huge, powerful job.
Perhaps I, just like you, imagined there might be a way out on the horizon before Putin decided on war.
...
Since early Thursday morning, an already broken and wounded world has become even more fragile and sinister. The chance that a new Cold War—driven by madness or sheer malice—could boil over into a wider conflict today feels much more real than it did just a few days ago. These are dark times for anyone who actually gives a damn about neighbors far beyond our own local interests and borders. All that heavy, vital work done by good people everywhere to try and restore some semblance of normalcy? It all just washed away in an instant.
...
It was honestly staggering to watch the US President, the UK Prime Minister, and their representatives at the UN condemn Russia for violating supposedly sacred international laws and charters, when US and UK foreign policy has been a textbook display of arrogant contempt for those very same rules for generations. History is littered with countries and peoples who paid—and continue to pay—dearly because US Presidents and British PMs chose brute force and "regime change" over actual diplomacy.
It’s almost funny hearing the US President and the UK Prime Minister preach about defending Ukrainian "territorial integrity," considering how US and British leaders have treated the sovereignty of countless other nations as nothing more than an inconvenience to their imperial ambitions.
The list of examples where US and UK "exceptionalism" left a mark is endless—Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Chile, Venezuela, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, and, of course, Iraq, among many others.
End of quote.