#they approve of the russian invasion of ukraine

[intern-seraph]

blocking the big tankies has done wonders for my dash tbh

[batboyblog]

On Top of the totally fictional story of black immigrants eating their neighbors cats and dogs here are some more totally fictional stories Trump made up in the last month, does he believe these are real things that happened? or does he just not care at all if he lies making things up at will?

1 Harris and the military draft

At a rally in Las Vegas last week, Trump claimed his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, is talking about forcing Americans to serve in the military: “She’s already talking about bringing back the draft. She wants to bring back the draft, and draft your child, and put them in a war that should never have happened.” That’s absolute bunk. Harris is not talking at all about bringing back the draft.

2 Harris’ CNN interview

Trump claimed during a Fox News event in Pennsylvania in early September that Harris “had notes” to assist her during the television interview she did with CNN in late August. He even performed an impression in which he portrayed Harris supposedly looking down at these notes. She didn’t actually have any notes.

3 Transgender children and schools

At an event held by a conservative group in late August, Trump claimed that schools are sending children for gender-affirming surgeries without their parents’ knowledge. He said, “The transgender thing is incredible. Think of it. Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child.” Trump’s campaign subsequently made clear to CNN that it could not find a single example of such a thing having happened anywhere in the United States. Parental consent is required for gender-affirming operations; schools have not performed or approved these surgeries for minors behind their parents’ backs. Even after Trump’s campaign demonstrated that it couldn’t substantiate the story, he repeated it days later at a Wisconsin rally in early September.

4 Harris and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Trump told a vivid story on Fox News in late August about how President Joe Biden supposedly sent Harris to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2022 in an effort to prevent an invasion of Ukraine. Trump claimed Harris was sent “to see Putin in Russia three days before the attack. She went. She said – she gave her case. He attacked three days later. He attacked three days later. He laughed at her. He thought she was a joke.” Trump also told a version of the story at the September debate. But this story, too, is wholly false. Biden never sent Harris to negotiate with Putin – in fact, the Kremlin said in July that Harris and Putin have never spoken – and Harris did not travel to Russia just prior to the invasion. Rather, Harris traveled to a conference in Germany to meet with US allies, including Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky.

5 Harris’ identity

Trump claimed at a convention of Black journalists in late July that Harris used to “only” promote her Indian heritage, then “all of a sudden” made a “turn” and “became a Black person.” Defending the claim, Trump reiterated at the September debate that Harris had “put out” at some point that “she was not Black.” None of that is true. Harris – who was raised in a Black community and graduated from a historically Black university – has embraced her Black identity since her youth. While she has also fondly discussed her South Asian heritage, she never “put out” that she wasn’t Black.

6 Harris’ 2020 primary performance

Trump has repeatedly claimed during the last month that Harris was so unpopular when she previously ran for the presidency, in 2019, that she was the very first candidate to drop out of the crowded Democratic primary. “She was one of 22 people that ran. She was the first one to quit,” he said at a Pennsylvania rally in late August. Not even close. In fact, 13 other Democratic candidates dropped out of the race before Harris did – including the sitting or former governors of Washington, Montana and Colorado; the sitting mayor of New York City; and sitting or former members of the House of Representatives and Senate.

7 Opinions of Roe v. Wade

Facing heavy criticism from Harris and others for appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned the Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision in 2022, Trump concocted a tale that this unpopular decision fulfilled the wishes of “everybody” – including “every Democrat.” “Every Democrat, every Republican, everybody wanted Roe v. Wade terminated and brought back to the states,” Trump said on Fox News in late August. This is not even remotely accurate. Roe was consistently supported by a majority of the American public, and it was overwhelmingly popular among Democrats – with 80% support or better among Democrats in many polls.

8 Elections in California

At a September press conference in California, Trump claimed that “if I ran with an honest vote counter in California I would win California, but the votes are not counted honestly.” He had delivered an even more colorful version of the claim in an interview in late August, saying, “If Jesus came down and was the vote counter, I would win California, okay?” More rubbish. The votes are counted honestly in California, as they are in every other state; Trump loses California because it is an overwhelmingly Democratic state that has not chosen a Republican presidential candidate since 1988. He lost the state in 2020, fair and square, by more five million votes and more than 29 percentage points.

9 A ‘Man of the Year’ award in Michigan

Since 2016, Trump has told a lie that he was named “Man of the Year” in Michigan before he entered politics. Media outlets including CNN have repeatedly noted that Trump never got such an award and that the award doesn’t even appear to exist. But Trump claimed at a Michigan event on Tuesday that he has now been vindicated. “The press said, ‘Oh, it never happened.’ Well, then it did happen. They found out where it was,” Trump said. “But it was like 15 years ago, a beautiful area, but nobody remembered it; nobody remembered it all. All of a sudden, like through a miracle, they found out it did exist.” That’s a lie on top of a lie. The media has not discovered proof that Trump got a Michigan Man of the Year award. His campaign didn’t respond Wednesday to a request to explain what he was talking about.

10 Migrants, prisons and ‘the Congo’

For months, Trump has told a story about how “the Congo” has deliberately emptied prisons to somehow get its criminals to come to the United States as migrants. “Many prisoners let go from the Congo in Africa, rough prisoners,” he said at an August event in Arizona. At an August rally in Pennsylvania the week after, he said, “In the Congo, in Africa: 22 people deposited into our country. ‘Where do you come from?’ ‘The Congo.’ ‘Where in the Congo?’ ‘Jail.’” But Trump has presented zero evidence that “the Congo” has actually emptied any prisons for migration purposes. Representatives for the governments of both the Democratic Republic of Congo and the neighboring Republic of Congo have told CNN on the record that the claim is fiction, experts on the two countries say they have seen no evidence it is true, and Trump’s campaign has ignored requests to offer any substantiation.

11 The jobs revision

After the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics announced in August that its annual revision of jobs data found that the economy added about 818,000 fewer jobs than initially reported for the 12 months ending in March, Trump told a story about how the government had been planning to announce this downward revision “after November 5th,” Election Day, but was forced to do so before the election because of “a whistleblower” – “a patriot leaker.” Another fabrication. The Bureau of Labor Statistics regularly releases the preliminary revised data in August, and it had disclosed the precise date of this particular data release – August 21 – weeks in advance. William Beach, a conservative economist who was appointed by Trump to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wrote on social media: “For those who think the big revision to the BLS jobs numbers ‘leaked’ and was meant to come out after the election, remember that BLS always announces its draft revisions in August and announced this year’s date, August 21, many months ago. It is important to check your facts.”

[dontforgetukraine]

A memorial service was held in Lviv for 7-year-old Emilia, 18-year-old Daria, 21-year-old Yaryna, and their mother Yevhenia, all killed in the Russian strike on September 4.

Meanwhile, Russian propaganda was at a film festival in Venice. The film "Russians at War" had funding from Canadian tax dollars. Unless something changes, it will also be shown at a film festival in Toronto on September 10th. It received $340,000 from the Canada Media Fund, which receives funding from the Government of Canada (Source). It also had support from France’s Centre National de Cinéma.

This is some of what the Ukrainian Canadian Congress had to say about it. You can find more of their statements on their website. They encourage everyone to contact the Canada Media Fund to share views on the funding and that the screening of the film should be cancelled. Contact information is in the link.

The Canadian Government says it is very concerned about the influence of Russian propaganda. Then why is the Canada Media Fund using taxpayer money to fund: —A movie – Russians at War – made by a filmmaker whose previous movies used to be broadcast by Russia Today, a Russian propaganda outlet sanctioned by the Government of Canada? —A filmmaker who entered sovereign Ukrainian territory together with invading Russian armies, thus violating Ukrainian law, Ukrainian sovereignty and possibly breaching Canadian sanctions? —Why did this film receive $340,000 from the Canada Media Fund, which is funded by the Government of Canada? —Why is the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) screening a movie that seeks to explain away Russia’s genocidal war of aggression against Ukraine? Why is TIFF showcasing a film which blames “propaganda” or “the fog of war” for the Russian armies who invaded Ukraine and who rape, torture, murder and dehumanize Ukrainians?

The TVO (Ontario's public educational media organization) had this to say on the matter of the film.

Russians at War is at its core an anti-war film. It is unauthorized by Russian officials and was made at great personal risk to the filmmaker, who was under constant threat of arrest and incarceration for trying to tell an unofficial story. This film shows the increasing disillusionment of Russian soldiers as their experience at the front doesn’t jive with the media lies their families are being told at home. The film was produced by an Academy Award nominee with the support of cultural agencies in France and Canada because it is a documentary made in the tradition of independent war correspondence. We encourage people to see the documentary for themselves when it is available. It will be screening at the Toronto International Film Festival next week and will be airing on TVO in the coming months. TVO is an education and public affairs-focused organization. Our priority is to provide our viewers with important stories from across Ontario and around the world. TVO remains firmly committed to delivering high-quality and ethical content. We value transparency and integrity in our work and continue to uphold these principles in all our operations.” – TVO Media Education Group

This is naivety at best. No matter what, it's being complicit to white washing Russian war crimes.

Anastasia Trofimova, the documentary's filmmaker, has at least 11 films funded by RT. And as the DOJ in America has shown us recently, RT has direct ties to the Kremlin. To think she could get access and just film anything without the approval of the FSB is laughable. Nothing happens without their approval, and at the very least it would be a breach of OpSec.

And what she says gets even worse.

Trofimova was asked at the Venice press conference on whether it was “ethical” to humanize Russian soldiers, in light of war crimes committed by Russia’s army during its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.   “I find it a little bit of a strange question, if we can humanize or not humanize someone. So, are there lists of people who we can humanize and people who we can’t? Of course, we have to humanize everyone. This is a huge tragedy for our region, first of all, and for the entire world,” replied Trofimova.  “If we don’t see each other as people…  these black and white stereotypes about each other, this will only make the war continue. This will only make the hatred grow… unfortunately, that’s sort of the route taken by politicians, but I don’t think that this is the route that regular people should take.”

Of course she frames it as a great tragedy for Russia. "Russia is always the victim and should never be held accountable" is the common narrative and attitude. She didn't mention Bucha, or Irpin, or any of the other cities that have been wiped off the map. She doesn't acknowledge the ethnic cleansing being done by her country or why Russians are being regarded as something other than human due to their actions and behavior. She keeps talking about seeing people as people, but doesn't acknowledge the perverse racism and dehumanization her fellow Russians do to Ukrainians and the ethnic minorities within Russia. The soldiers in the Russian army carry this attitude to the battlefield. It's not hard to find this behavior in all the videos on Telegram.

To that point and in answer to a second question by the same journalist on whether she had seen the Ukrainian films in Venice, Trofimova voiced her disquiet at the ending of Olha Zhurba’s documentary Songs of Slow Burning Earth which is also playing Out of Competition. The audiovisual diary captures the impact on Ukrainian people and society in the first two years of the ongoing Russian invasion, which began in February 2022. “I found it to be really good, especially the first 15, 20 minutes… when people just started to find out that the war is beginning… I found it to be really strong,” said Trofimova. “The ending, though, I wasn’t that much of a fan of because it sort of contrasted Ukrainian kids and Russian kids, with Ukrainian kids thinking about what they can do to build a better Ukraine for the future, and Russian kids were just shown as marching and singing war songs. “I found this to be playing into that whole narrative that Russians, by definition, are these aggressive and awful people… you know that it’s in their blood to be to be this way."

Look, if she has a problem with how Russian children are being portrayed in the ending of that other film, then maybe she should look around and wonder why the portrayal is there. Ukrainians aren't the ones filling Russian children's heads with propaganda and revanchism. Your fellow Russians are sending their kids to school with backpacks with the fucking Z on them, or making them wear tank costumes in parades. I've read articles of Russians sending their kids to some form of military camp. It's Russian society that creates and reinforces standards to be awful people, not Ukrainians. Examine your damn society first. Look at the war crimes Russian soldiers willingly commit and record to post on Telegram. Listen to what your fellow Russians say about Ukrainians. It's not hard.

This is all grotesque manipulation and propaganda.

If you want to read this article these excerpts are from, here. I'm so disgusted I'm getting a headache.

[still-searching-for-something]

I think a lot of people don't realize the Pax Americana, the massive decline in the frequency and severity of interstate wars since the end of the Second World War, is not a coincidence or happenstance. It is not an act of G-d, an unalterable status quo, or an accident. It is the product of decades of careful, hard work by diplomats, world leaders, civil servants, and political figures. And the primary guarantor of this peace, the product of their hard work is:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

And NATO is precisely what Vladimir Putin is waging a targeted hybrid war to destroy.

The binding principle of NATO, of course, is that an attack against one is an attack against all. An assault against Poland will get America, Britain, Canada, Germany, and all of the other 32 member states to respond. This creates a tangible disincentive to attack, obviously. To be in NATO is to be assured that when shit hits the fan, you have the most powerful military in the history of mankind on your side, that you are protected from any expansionist neighbors. All across the world are nations that would likely be subject to hostile takeovers if their larger neighbors felt free to invade—Taiwan, Poland, the Baltics, Israel, Finland, etc. Some of these nations are not in NATO, but they are all American allies, and the American military is the bedrock of global peace today. You ever wonder why the US spends so much on a massive military in peacetime? Because they're paying for the defense of themselves, and Western Europe, ANDcontributing to the self defense capabilities of their allies—many of whom do have competent militaries of their own, but mutually benefit from the American security umbrella.

Today, of course, we're dealing with the problem of an expansionist Russia guided by an irredentist ideology that views Russia as holding a unique, privileged position between the decadent, declining West (Europe) and the foolish, ungovernable Asia. Eurasianism holds that Russia is the center of both worlds, and is both destined and obligated to take the reins of Europe and Asia and guide it to Russian-approved greatness. The Russian government systematically denies the legitimacy of Eastern Europe's national aspirations and cultures, arguing that it is no different from Russian culture and therefore deserves Russian governance. And if they can't take over these nations by unequal treaties and puppet regimes and troll farms, they'll do it directly with force.

But, of course, there's a problem. NATO. NATO is the obstacle in Putin's plans. A war with NATO would be, well, World War III. Russia can't afford to go to war with NATO, and they know that.

But what if... they could make NATO politically irrelevant?

And this is what brings us to our good friends Donald Trump and the Republican Party. The links between the Republican Party and the Russian state apparatus are a bit lengthy for the scope of this post, but the point is, Donald Trump has displayed a consistent admiration for Vladimir Putin, and a derision for NATO unheard of for any American president since 1949. Trump has described NATO as "obsolete" and even stated he would allow Russia to "do whatever they wanted" to nations that don't pay enough into NATO.

This is bad. Real bad.

Trump is doing what is in Putin's interest and trying to turn back the clock to the pre-NATO days—where nations were invaded by stronger neighbors, and there was no massive military alliance to block it. Putin is working to undo the Long Peace and create the circumstances that would allow him to bring back the dead Soviet empire by force. Yes, NATO would intervene if Russian troops set foot in Poland, but that will mean a lot less if the main backbone of NATO, the United States, has announced to the world that it will abandon its allies.

This is what makes European leaders so invested in the 2024 presidential election, and why the invasion of Ukraine shocked them so much—Putin was demonstrating he seriously wants to wage war for territorial expansion, and is willing to kill to do so. If Trump wins in 2024, not only will he enact Project 2025 and cause all kinds of damage to the United States' democracy, he will also create a world where autocrats are free to invade their neighbors if they want. China can invade Taiwan. Russia can invade the Baltics. North Korea can invade South Korea. Venezuela can invade Guyana. Azerbaijan can invade Armenia. He won't bring about World War III, he'll bring about a bunch of smaller wars, all over the world.

If you want peace and democracy, vote for Harris. If you want war and authoritarianism, vote for Trump.

It's as simple as that.

[odinsblog]

“It was December 1993, and I was sitting in my flat in Moscow, watching what must have been one of the first ever election night results shows on Russian television for a Parliamentary election.

It was an unusual spectacle, to say the least. Politicians, pundits and Russian officials were sitting around drinking champagne. And then this happened: On came an astrologer to deliver his celestial political forecast.

Looking back, it was quite appropriate really, because 30 years ago, Russians had stars in their eyes about freedom, democracy, and their country's future. That night, as well as electing a new parliament, the Duma, Russians also approved a new constitution. The constitution which, many years later, Vladimir Putin would change through a referendum to give himself the chance of twelve more years in power.

For a Russian election these days, you don't need astrologers or fortune tellers or crystal balls. I can tell you now pretty much what the result of next March's Russian presidential election will be. Vladimir Putin will win, and with a landslide.

There are several reasons for my confident prediction.

Russia's current political system is Putin's political system, his rules, his election. And although his will not be the only name on the ballot, his opponents are unlikely to include Mr. Putin's most vocal critics, arch rivals, and serious contenders. The president's most high profile opponents have either been poised, fled into exile or been put in prison. What's more, the Kremlin controls television. Vladimir Putin receives lots of airtime, and on tv, he's much praised, never criticized. Handy that, when you're seeking reelection.

And there's another reason he'll do well.

Meet Alexander. Alexander is a young tv reporter from northeastern Russia. At Vladimir Putin's end-of-year press conference recently, he stood up and declared, ‘We all support your decision to run in next year's election, because you've been in power for as long as I can remember.’ There are many Russians like Alexander who simply cannot imagine anyone else in the Kremlin, not because they idolize Vladimir Putin, they just see no alternative to him. I've often heard people here say, ‘Well, if not Putin, who then?’ The Kremlin has engineered that. It has cleared the political landscape of any potential challenges to the man who has ruled Russia as president or prime minister for nearly a quarter of a century, to make sure that those two words, that little question, ‘who then?’ is left unanswered.

Even the war in Ukraine and what are believed to be huge Russian military losses, don't appear to have sparked disillusionment in Russia's President and Commander-in-Chief.

It was Putin's decision to launch the full scale invasion, but some Russians believe that at a time of war, it is their duty to back their leader without questioning his motives or the consequences.

Crucially, the other thing you find a lot of here is indifference. Many Russians don't seem to care who's in power in the Kremlin. They just hunker down in their town or village and try to get through life as best they can. Indifference, too, benefits Vladimir Putin.

For all these reasons, his fifth election victory isn't in doubt.

But what I find much harder to predict is Russia's future. These are very dark times. Darkest, of course, for Ukraine, but for Russia, too. You can feel aggression in Russian society building. You can see repression growing, and you can see a leader who is determined, whatever the cost, to emerge from this war the winner.”

—Steve Rosenberg, BBC's Moscow correspondent, on Russia’s short lived democracy turned autocratic dictatorship

[mariacallous]

It’s not too late, because it’s never too late. No outcomes are ever preordained, nothing is ever over, and you can always affect what happens tomorrow by making the right choices today. The U.S. Congress is finally making one of those right choices. Soon, American weapons and ammunition will once again start flowing to Ukraine.

But delays do have a price. By dawdling for so many months, by heading down the blind alley of border reform before turning back, congressional Republicans who blocked weapons and ammunition for Ukraine did an enormous amount of damage, some of it irreparable. Over the past six months, Ukraine lost territory, lives, and infrastructure. If Ukraine had not been deprived of air defense, the city of Kharkiv might still have most of its power plants. People who have died in the near-daily bombardment of Odesa might still be alive. Ukrainian soldiers who spent weeks at the front lines rationing ammunition might not be so demoralized.

The delay has changed American politics too. Only a minority of House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, joined most Democrats to approve $60 billion in aid yesterday. What is now clearly a pro-Russia Republican caucus has consolidated inside Congress. The lesson is clear: Anyone who seeks to manipulate the foreign policy of the United States, whether the tin-pot autocrat in Hungary or the Communist Party of China, now knows that a carefully designed propaganda campaign, when targeted at the right people, can succeed well beyond what anyone once thought possible. From the first days of the 2022 Russian invasion, President Vladimir Putin has been trying to conquer Ukraine through psychological games as well as military force. He needed to persuade Americans, Europeans, and above all Ukrainians that victory was impossible, that the only alternative was surrender, and that the Ukrainian state would disappear in due course.

Plenty of Americans and Europeans, though not so many Ukrainians, supported this view. Pro-Russia influencers—Tucker Carlson, J. D. Vance, David Sacks—backed up by an army of pro-Russia trolls on X and other social-media platforms, helped feed the narrative of failure and convinced a minority in Congress to block aid for Ukraine. It’s instructive to trace the path of a social-media post that falsely claimed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky owns two yachts, how it traveled up the food chain late last year, from the keyboard of a propagandist through the echo chamber created by trolls and into the brains of American lawmakers. According to Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, some of his colleagues worried out loud, during debates about military aid to Ukraine, that “people will buy yachts with this money.” They had read the false stories and believed they were true.

But with the passage of this aid bill, Russia’s demoralization campaign has suffered a severe setback. This is also a setback for the Russian war effort, and not only because the Ukrainians will now have more ammunition. Suddenly the Russian military and Russian society are once again faced with the prospect of a very long war. Ukraine, backed by the combined military and economic forces of the United States and the European Union, is a much different opponent than Ukraine isolated and alone.

That doesn’t mean that the Russians will quickly give up: Putin and the propagandists who support him on state television have repeatedly stated that their goal is not to gain a bit of extra territory but to control all of Ukraine. They don’t want to swap land for peace. They want to occupy Kharkiv, Odesa, Kyiv, and more. Now, while their goals become harder to reach, is a good moment for the democratic countries backing Ukraine to recalibrate our strategy too.

Once the aid package becomes law this week, the psychological advantage will once again be on our side. Let’s use it. As Johnson himself recommended, the Biden administration should immediately pressure European allies to release the $300 billion in Russian assets that they jointly hold and send it to Ukraine. There are excellent legal and moral arguments for doing so—the money can legitimately be considered a form of reparations. This shift would also make clear to the Kremlin that it has no path back to what used to be called “normal” relations, and that the price Russia is paying for its colonial war will only continue to grow.

This is also a good moment for both Europeans and Americans to take the sanctions and export-control regimes imposed on Russia more seriously. If NATO were running a true economic-pressure campaign, thousands of people would be involved, with banks of screens at a central command center and constantly updated intelligence. Instead, the task has been left to a smattering of people across different agencies in different countries who may or may not be aware of what others are doing.

As American aid resumes, the Ukrainians should be actively encouraged to pursue the asymmetric warfare that they do best. The air and naval drone campaign that pushed the Black Sea Fleet away from their coastline, the raids on Russian gas and oil facilities thousands of miles from Ukraine, the recruitment of Russian soldiers, in Russia, to join pro-Ukraine Russian units fighting on the border—we need more of this, not less. The Biden administration should also heed Johnson’s suggestion that the United States supply more and better long-range weapons so that Ukrainians can hit Russian missile launchers before the missiles reach Ukraine. If the U.S. had done so in the autumn of 2022, when Ukraine was taking back territory, the world might look a lot different today.

This war will be over only when the Russians no longer want to fight—and they will stop fighting when they realize they cannot win. Now it is our turn to convince them, as well as our own pro-Russia caucus, that their invasion will fail. The best way to do that is to believe it ourselves.

[highlights-of-the-lowlife]

sweden has issued a warning to its citizens to be prepared for a possible war with russia. this is based on the russian playbook of invading countries attempting to join nato. sweden has applied and is only waiting for hungary and turkey to approve for full membership.

here's why i wouldn't worry. when georgia entered talks with nato, they were unfortunately a relatively poor country that hadn't put much spending into defence and didn't have much in the way of ties to the rest of europe. that made them easy pickings for russia. the plan being that no country can join nato unless they have no conflicts within their borders and full territorial control. its why georgia got invaded and why ukraine is being invaded now.

sweden on the other hand is close to europe both geographically and politically. sweden has also feared a russian invasion for a good deal of its history as they have been at war multiple times so sweden has spent its military budget near exclusively building a modern army strategically focused on stopping russia.

their gripen fighter jet has been built so that it can take off and land from nearly back road in sweden. their stridsvagn tank is designed to be low to the ground in order to be concealable for ambushes. their coastal defences have some of the best radars in the world. and touching them will get both the EU and the americans involved.

russia can't afford another front. especially not one where they have to avoid finnish territory now that finland is a nato member. especially not one against a modern army with equipment designed to stop them flat. and especially not when ukraine is bleeding them dry of every military asset they have.

as much as i love ukraine, their military was in fairly dire straights prior to the '22 invasion and yet even having to scramble to mobilise they've managed to push russia out of kyiv, kharkiv and kherson with what is essentially nato handmedowns and old soviet donations. they're beating an army 3 times their size with whatever is found in the nato parts bin. russia has no chance of beating sweden one on one let alone still trying to capture ukraine

[tomorrowusa]

Sweden officially joined NATO on Thursday. It had been neutral since 1814.

One of Putin's pretexts for his illegal invasion of Ukraine was to prevent NATO expansion. What the invasion really did was to cause NATO to become reinvigorated and expanded.

With Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the land border between Russia and NATO has doubled in length. And the Baltic is now a Sea of NATO with Russia holding only a couple of relatively short strips of coastline near Kaliningrad and Saint Petersburg. This represents a spectacular strategic failure for Putin.

Sweden on Thursday formally joined NATO as the 32nd member of the transatlantic military alliance, ending decades of post-World War II neutrality as concerns about Russian aggression in Europe have spiked following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Secretary of State Antony Blinken presided at a ceremony in which Sweden's "instrument of accession" to the alliance was officially deposited at the State Department. "This is a historic moment for Sweden. It's historic for alliance. It's history for the transatlantic relationship," Blinken said. "Our NATO alliance is now stronger, larger than it's ever been." Kristersson wrote in a social media post that "we are therefore a safer country." Later Thursday. Kristersson will visit the White House and then be a guest of honor at President Joe Biden's State of the Union address to Congress.

Ukraine will eventually join NATO but it probably won't happen while active hostilities continue. Expect to hear Sweden mentioned at the State of the Union address.

Biden, in his speech to Congress, is expected to cite Sweden's accession to NATO as evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin's intent to divide and weaken the alliance has failed as a direct result of the Ukraine invasion. And, the Democratic president is expected to use Sweden's decision to join to step up calls for reluctant Republicans to approved stalled military assistance to Ukraine as the war enters its third year. Biden and his NATO counterparts have vowed that Ukraine will join one day, too.

Russian imperialism of the past 300 years has caused its neighbors to seek more protection against it. Few people in Eastern Europe have fond memories of being Russian or Soviet colonies. With Putin acting like a хуйло for the past 20 years, the only safe option is NATO membership.

[ohsalome]

Recently, I tweeted at Russian developer Mundfish, creators of the upcoming Atomic Heart, and asked why the devs had not said one word about Russia’s actions against Ukraine. The developers promptly blocked me without a response. Understanding the relationship between Ukrainians and Russians is also key to understanding why Ukrainians can’t trust a Russian game developer to be anti-war if it doesn’t take action or, at the very least, explicitly state that it is against the invasion. Many Ukrainians have family members, acquaintances, and friends in Russia who were born or moved there years ago. After February 24, many of these connections either ceased communication entirely or outwardly approved of Russia’s invasion. This isn’t to say that Russians everywhere necessarily support the invasion, but they have lost the benefit of the doubt for Ukrainians. At the end of the day, do you really want to play a game from a developer that can’t so much as take two seconds out of their day to type “war is bad, one country shouldn’t invade the other?”

[beardedmrbean]

Memorials to victims of Stalinist repression in Russia are disappearing or being vandalised amid increasing attempts to rehabilitate the Soviet dictator.

For the past nine years, more than 700 plaques have been put up in Russia and elsewhere, commemorating the final residences of people who died in Stalin's purges in the 1930s.

Since May, however, dozens have disappeared in several Russian cities, according to Oksana Matievskaya, who is part of the plaque project Posledniy Adres (last address).

Police are not investigating the issue and Ms Matievskaya believes this is no coincidence.

"The memory of the Soviet terror challenges the concept of the state always being right and is, therefore, inconvenient for the Russian authorities. Especially following the invasion of Ukraine," she said.

Millions of people described as "enemies of the people" were sent to Soviet labour camps, known as the Gulag, and 750,000 were summarily murdered during Stalin's Great Terror in the 1930s.

Other memorials are also being targeted.

At least 18 monuments to victims of repression as well as foreign soldiers who fought in World War Two have been reported stolen or vandalised since February 2022. Most are dedicated to Polish nationals.

In October, a brick memorial to a prominent Polish priest was torn down and destroyed in the city of Vladimir.

A concrete cross erected in Komi republic, in memory of Polish prisoners, was also found demolished. Police attributed its destruction to bad weather and declined to initiate criminal proceedings, local media said.

Soviet authorities executed hundreds of thousands of Poles after 1939. In 1940, 1.7 million were deported to Gulag camps in Siberia and Kazakhstan.

Alexandra Polivanova of civil rights group Memorial believes the damage was ordered or carried out by authorities because Moscow wants the Soviet Union to be perceived as a powerhouse rather than an oppressive state.

She suggests the government doesn't want Russians to know the truth about their tragic past, especially now that Russian soldiers have been accused of war crimes in Ukraine.

"The authorities try to erase the memory of the crimes of that empire to cover up or justify the crimes of this one."

This is taking place alongside a resurgence in Stalin's popularity.

In July, a survey by independent pollster the Levada Centre suggested that 63% of Russians had a favourable attitude towards the Soviet leader - his highest approval rating in 13 years.

The explanation behind his rising popularity is not certain but Russian propaganda justifying the war with Ukraine has also glorified its Soviet past.

And unlike memorials to his victims, those to Stalin have increased in number.

An investigative channel on social media site Telegram called "We can explain" says there are 110 Stalin statues in Russia - 95 erected during President Vladimir Putin's rule and at least four during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Some Russians want even more. In August the private Russkiy Vityaz (Russian Knight) Foundation inaugurated an 8m-high statue of Stalin in the town of Velikiye Luki, and is collecting money for more.

Its website argues these monuments are crucial given that Russia is fighting "a real Patriotic war". The "Great Patriotic War" is how Russians describe the 1941-1945 war between the USSR and Nazi Germany. The Kremlin regularly compares Russia's invasion of Ukraine to World War Two.

Russkiy Vityaz, which is said to have been founded by the Russian Special Forces Veterans Association, has declined to comment on the reasons for its campaign.

[its-suanneschafer-author]

Continuing my review and summarizing of Project 2025, the GOP 2024 platform, and Trump’s Agenda 47.

1) Trump denies knowledge of Project 2025, a radical conservative Christian manifesto, yet many of his present and former advisors wrote the 900 page document which is a blueprint for the new GOP president starting from day one with massive, sweeping actions that will not only paralyze the government but will ensure chaos for years to come. It is the most detailed look at a future Trump presidency. Trump’s name is mentioned 268 times in the document, so it was certainly written with him in mind. Trump instituted 64% of the policy recommendations that were put out in the 2016 conservative mandate, a blueprint for the Trump administration and which was as right-wing and conservative as the current Project 2025.

2) Agenda 47 collects formal policies Trump plans to put into effect, many of which rely on executive orders and significant expansion of his executive powers. In 2023, Trump campaign officials stated that Project 2025 aligns well with Agenda 47.

These policies include:

A) restriction of Chinese ownership of US infrastructure

B) End the “Biden war” on US energy by eliminating every regulation that hampers domestic production, getting out of the Paris Agreement, and giving fast approval to every oil infrastructure project that comes before his administration 

C) Baseline tariffs on most foreign goods, revoking Chinese Most Favored Nation trade status

D) Decrease trade deficits

E) Not bailing out failing banks, slashing regulations, and repealing Biden’s tax hikes to reduce inflation

F) The Trump Reciprocal Trade Act will tariff other countries’ imports at the same rate they tariff our exports. NB: The costs of these tariffs will be passed on to consumers and will cause more harm than good

G) Gut Biden’s Green New Deal policies and electric cars initiative, and terminate all emission regulations on cars, fossil fuels, etc

H) Dept of Education

1—Cut federal funding for any school or program teaching critical race theory or gender ideology by removing the radicals who have infiltrated the Dept of Education. 

2—Keep men out of women’s sports. 

3—Create a new way to certify teachers based on their patriotism and give preferential treatment to schools that abolish teacher tenure, abolish DEI, and adopt direct election of school principals by parents. 

4—Pursue federal civil rights cases against schools that engage in “equity” by taxing up to the entire amount of their endowment

5—Restore parental rights to control their child’s education; allow parents to hire and fire principals and teachers.

6—Bring back school prayer NB: This includes reading the Bible but doesn’t include any teachings of other religions

7—Allow teachers to carry concealed weapons at school 

8—Immediate expulsion and sentencing to reform school of any student who harms another student or a teacher or use or possession of drugs at school

9—The US government will issue bachelor’s degrees to those who did not finish their degrees by creating a new educational institution aimed at competing with schools already in existence. NB: This is from the man who owes fines from the failure of his own for-profit college.

I) Reinterpret presidential powers so that he has greater control of the government in the White House

(the unitary executive theory).

1—Dismantle the “deep state” and revamp every aspect of the US government. NB: These policies could upset the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government and provoke a constitutional showdown by usurping congressional authority and cutting out any program he doesn’t like or whose proponents have angered him. This is a fascist plan

2—Prevent World War III and end the Russian invasion of Ukraine. NB: The fact that he has buddied up to Putin makes this highly unlikely.

3—Overhaul the entire US defense and intelligence bureaucracies

4—Ask Europe to refund the money we spend to rebuild the stockpiles we sent to Ukraine. NB: Good luck with that

J) Keep Medicare and Social Security intact. NB: Every single congressional Republican—and 43 Senate Republicans—sided with Big Pharma over the American people and blocked an amendment that would cap out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 for millions of Americans on private insurance. Thus, Big Pharma and the rich get richer at the cost of the health and lives of the poor. In March 2024, the Republican Study committee which represents 100% of House Republican leadership and 80% of their members proposed yet another budget that would cut the following by $4.5 trillion over 1-0 years: Medicare (transition Medicare to a premium support system that would raise premiums for many seniors), Social Security ($1.5 trillion in cuts) , the Affordable Care Act, the Children’s Health Insurance Initiative and increase prescription drugs (removing $35 insulin), energy and housing costs while raising the retirements age plus forcing $5.5. trillion in tax cuts for the very rich.

K) Immigration policy

1—Ban birthright citizenship 

2—End welfare for illegal immigants

3—Massive deportation of immigrants

L) Inflation

1—Build “Freedom Cities” on undeveloped federal land to lower cost of buying a home

2—Build vertical takeoff and landing vehicles

M) Shatter the left-wing censorship regime

L) Law enforcement

1—Increase investment in police personnel, stop illegal drugs

2—Death penalty for drug dealers and human traffickers

3—Overhaul federal standards on disciplining minors

4—Concealed carry reciprocity

M) DEI

1—Abandon DEI, terminate any offices, staff, and initiatives connected to DEI

2—Focus on anti-white racism rather than discrimination against people of color

N) Transgender and LBGQI+ rights: Terminate all gender affirming care at any age and terminating federal funding for any hospital or healthcare provider that participates in it

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Tim Campbell

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 29, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 1, 2024

Today’s story is that in the negotiations to fund the government and pass the national supplemental security bill, MAGA Republicans appear to be losing ground. Biden appears to be trying to weaken them further by making it clear it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are preventing new, strict border security legislation.

The first of two continuing resolutions to fund the government for fiscal year 2024 will expire tomorrow. Fiscal year 2024 began on October 1, 2023, and Congress agreed to a topline budget, but it has been unable to fund the necessary appropriations because MAGA Republicans have insisted on having their extreme demands met in those measures. In this struggle, former president Trump has urged his loyalists not to give way, telling them in September 2023: “UNLESS YOU GET EVERYTHING, SHUT IT DOWN!” 

But a poll from last September showed that 75% of Americans oppose using brinksmanship over a government shutdown to bargain for partisan gain. 

After kicking the can down the road by passing three previous continuing resolutions, House Republicans a week ago expected a shutdown. But today they backed off. The House passed a short-term continuing resolution that pushes back the dates on which the two continuing resolutions expire, from March 1 and March 8 to March 8 and March 22. The vote was 320 to 99 in the House, with 113 Republicans joining 207 Democrats to pass the measure. Ninety-seven Republicans opposed the bill, as did two Democrats who were protesting the lack of aid to Ukraine. 

Tonight, the Senate approved the continuing resolution by a vote of 77 to 13. President Joe Biden is expected to sign it tomorrow. “What we have done today has overcome the opposition of the MAGA hard right and gives us a formula for completing the appropriations process in a way that does not shut the government down and capitulate to extremists,” Senate majority leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) said.

Trump opposes helping Ukraine in its fight to resist Russia’s invasion, and under his orders, MAGA Republicans have also stalled the national security supplemental bill, which contains Ukrainian aid, as well as aid to Israel, the Indo-Pacific, and humanitarian aid to Gaza. The measure passed the Senate on February 13 by a strong bipartisan vote of 70 to 29, and is expected to pass the House if Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) takes it up, but so far, he has refused.

Today, Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) told reporters that “several” House Republicans are willing to sign a discharge petition to force Speaker Johnson to bring a national security supplemental measure to the floor for a vote. A simple majority can force a vote on a bill through a discharge petition, but such a measure is rare because it undermines the House speaker. With Johnson refusing to take up the Senate measure, Fitzpatrick and his colleague Representative Jared Golden (D-ME) have prepared their own pared-down aid measure. Fitzpatrick told CNN’s Jake Tapper Tuesday that “[w]e are trying to add an additional pressure point on something that has to happen.” 

Speakers from the parliaments of 23 nations wrote to Johnson yesterday and urged him to take up the Senate measure, saying that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has “challenged the entire democratic world, jeopardizing the security in the whole European and Euro-Atlantic area,” and that “the world is rapidly moving towards the destruction of the sustainable world order.”  

On Tuesday, Johnson met with President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senate majority leader Schumer, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to discuss the importance of funding the government and passing the national security supplemental bill. There, he was the odd man out as the other five pressed upon him how crucial funding for Ukraine is for U.S. national security.

Yesterday, Johnson told Fox News Channel personality Sean Hannity that the leaders told him he was “on an island by myself, and it was me versus everyone else in the room.” He went on: “What the liberal media doesn’t understand, Sean, is that if you’re here in Washington and you’re described as a leader that’s on an island by themselves, it probably means you’re standing with the American people.” 

But an AP-NORC poll released today shows that it is not Johnson but the others at that meeting who are standing with the American people: 74% of Americans, including 62% of Republicans, support U.S. aid to Ukraine’s military. 

The struggle between Biden and Trump for control over U.S. politics played out starkly today as both were in Texas to talk about immigration. Both say the influx of migrants at the southern border of the United States needs to be better managed. But Trump blames Biden for what he compares to a war in which an “invasion” of criminal “fighting-age men” are pouring over the border. (NBC News noted that “there is no evidence of a migrant-driven crime wave in the United States” and that, in fact, their review of crime data ”shows overall crime levels dropping in those cities that have received the most migrants.”)

Trump promises he would solve immigration issues instantly with executive orders, although his orders during his term faced legal challenges.  

In contrast to Trump’s promise to dictate a solution, Biden emphasized that the government should work for the people. In Texas, he noted that the federal government has rushed emergency personnel and funds to the state to combat the deadly wildfires there that have burned more than a million acres, and he urged Congress to pass a law to address border issues, as he has asked it to since he took office. 

Such a measure is popular, and earlier this month, Trump undermined a bill that was tilted so far to the right that it drew the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and the U.S. Border Patrol union. Senators from both parties had spent four months hammering the bill out at the insistence of House Republicans, who then killed it when Trump, apparently hoping to keep the issue open for his campaign, told them to. 

Today, Biden urged Congress to pass the $20.2 billion bipartisan border bill that would, he said, give border patrol officers the resources they need: 1,500 more border agents, 100 cutting-edge machines to detect and stop illegal fentanyl, 100 additional immigration judges to deal with the backlog of cases, 4,300 more asylum officers, more immigrant visas, and emergency authority for the president to shut the border when it becomes overwhelmed. 

Biden spoke directly to Trump: “Instead of playing politics with the issue, instead of telling members of Congress to block this legislation, join me, or I'll join you, in telling the Congress to pass this bipartisan border security bill. We can do it together…. Instead of playing politics with the issue, why don't we just get together and get it done. Let’s remember who the heck we work for. We work for the American people, not the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. We work for the American people.”

Trump may not share that perspective. Last night, Maggie Haberman and Andrew Higgins of the New York Times reported that Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, who has undermined democracy in Hungary, will visit Trump at Mar-a-Lago next week as Trump scrambles to find the more than half a billion dollars he needs to pay the fines and penalties courts have ordered. “We cannot interfere in other countries’ elections,” Orbán said last week, “but we would very much like to see President Donald Trump return to the White House.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[darkmaga-retard]

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the West against allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike deep inside Russia.

Sep 14, 2024

Kim Darroch, Britain’s former national security adviser, said in an interview published Saturday that the West should consider Russian Vladimir Putin’s threat of a major escalation before allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike deep inside Russia.

“If they are confident that he’s bluffing, then fine. But he’s bluffing until he isn’t,” he told The Financial Times.

U.S. President Joe Biden and the collective West continue to gamble.

This is a major shift from when Biden told reporters on 11 March 2022, just weeks after the Russian invasion, that providing “offensive” equipment to Ukraine was off-limits.

“Look, the idea… the idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews, just understand – and don’t kid yourself, no matter what you all say – that’s called WWIII,” he said at the time.

Since then, he crossed nearly every imaginary line that he set in his support for Ukraine’s war effort…so much so that he was mocked by the former Ukrainian defense head Oleksii Reznikov, who said shortly after the approval of U.S. tanks for Ukraine: “This concern about the next level of escalation, for me, is some kind of protocol. Ukraine as a country, and the armed forces of Ukraine, became [a] member of NATO. De facto, not de jure (by law). Because we have weaponry and the understanding of how to use it.”

[usafphantom2]

The first of 14 new F-16 fighter jets from the US land in Slovakia

Jul 22, 2024 at 05:06 PM

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia — Slovakia received on Monday the first two of the 14 new F-16 military jets from the United States whose delivery was pushed back two years due to the coronavirus pandemic and a lack of chips.

President Peter Pellegrini hailed the arrival of the F-16s at the Kuchyna air base in western Slovakia late Monday by saying the F-16s will “significantly contribute to the increase of defense capabilities of our country.”

The rest of the jets will be gradually delivered in two years.

Pellegrini was the prime minister in 2018 when the government signed the $1.8 billion deal to purchase 14 U.S. F-16 Block 70/72 fighter jets in a move meant to replace the obsolete Soviet-made MiG-29 jets.

Under the previous government, Slovakia grounded its MiGs in the summer of 2022 due to a lack of spare parts and expertise to help maintain them after Russian technicians returned home following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Last year, the government approved a plan to give Ukraine its fleet of 13 MiG-29s, becoming the second NATO member country to heed the Ukrainian government’s pleas for warplanes to help defend against Russia’s invasion.

In the absence of its own aircraft, fellow NATO members Poland, the Czech Republic and later also Hungary have stepped in to guard Slovak air space.

The new government led by populist Prime Minister Robert Fico came to power last year after winning the parliamentary election following campaigning on an anti-American platform. It has condemned the donation of the jets to Ukraine and has threatened to sue.

Fico opposes military support for Ukraine and EU sanctions on Russia. Pellegrini’s his close ally.

[whatthehelloh]

Billionaire Elon Musk reportedly restricted his Starlink internet access multiple times in Ukraine, which has affected Kyiv’s battlefield strategy.

The world’s richest man denied the Ukrainian military’s request to turn on Starlink near Crimea, the Russian-controlled territory, during the ongoing war with Russia, the New York Times reported, citing people familiar with the situation.

The Tesla CEO has been providing Starlink service to Ukraine since late February 2022, just days after Russian president Vladimir Putin launched his unprovoked invasion and a cyberattack took down the country’s internet.

SpaceX’s Starlink makes up the majority of satellites orbiting Earth with more than 4,000 of them in the low-Earth orbit.

Mr Musk’s unilateral hold over his satellite internet technology, which has been an essential part of Ukraine’s communications since the war, has raised concerns among officials, according to the report.

In February this year, SpaceX announced it had taken steps to prevent Ukraine’s military from using the Starlink satellite internet service for controlling drones in the region.

Following the announcement, Ukrainian presidential advisor Mykhailo Podolyak said SpaceX needed to pick a side in the war against Russia.

Ukrainian authorities worried about over-dependence on a single source technology held talks with other satellite internet providers. But they acknowledged none rival Starlink’s reach.

“Starlink is indeed the blood of our entire communication infrastructure now,” Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s digital minister, told NYT.

The technology, he said, enabled artillery teams, commanders and pilots to watch drone footage simultaneously while chatting online. According to soldiers, the response times from finding a target to hitting it have been cut to about a minute from nearly 20 minutes.

“The huge number of lives that Starlink has helped save can be measured in the thousands,” Mr Fedorov added. “This is one of the fundamental components of our success.”

Mr Musk also asked the US last year to fund for their internet services to Ukraine because they could not continue the arrangement. The company estimated the cost at nearly $400m over 12 months, according to a SpaceX letter reported by CNN.

About 1,300 Starlink terminals purchased through a British supplier stopped working last year after the Ukrainian government could not pay the $2,500 monthly fee for each, according to the report.

Meanwhile, defence secretary Lloyd Austin in June approved a Pentagon deal to buy 400 to 500 new Starlink terminals and services, that would provide the Pentagon control of the setting where the internet signal worked inside Ukraine for new devices to carry out “key capabilities and certain missions”.

[mariacallous]

News that $6 billion worth of outstanding U.S. military aid to Ukraine could expire by the end of September if Congress doesn’t take urgent action is unsettling some in Kyiv, where the painful memory of a larger package delay that led to battlefield losses remains fresh.

Delivering the $6 billion in additional U.S. aid depends on Congress extending the Pentagon’s authority to send weapons from its stockpiles to Ukraine. It is part of a larger $61 billion package approved last April after a seven-month delay, despite being critical to helping Kyiv fight off Russia’s full-scale invasion.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has asked Congress to include the $6 billion, provided via the Presidential Drawdown Authority program (PDA), in any continuing resolution lawmakers may pass before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 to fund the federal government and — yet again — prevent a shutdown.

U.S. officials said they hope to have the authority extended for another year, but the Defense Department is looking into other options if that effort fails.

It’s unclear why the $6 billion in military aid was not provided earlier, given the urgent needs of Ukraine’s armed forces in repelling Russia’s full-scale invasion, nor what weaponry it could entail. Multiple government sources in Ukraine and the U.S. declined to discuss the issue in detail.

The $6 billion is part of the $61 billion package approved in April, a congressional advisor who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the aid told the Kyiv Independent.

The advisor added that the delay in disbursing it due to absorption capacity issues, domestic US stock constraints, and a “constant flexibility issue with each withdrawal” in a situation where the U.S. adapts to Ukraine’s needs.

Ukraine’s Defense Ministry told the Kyiv Independent that the weapons and equipment for the full amount were not yet sent to Ukraine due to “the lack of the necessary weapons in the Pentagon's warehouses.”  The ministry didn’t specify which weapons were requested but assured that “there is no reason to believe that these $6 billion will ‘burn out.’"

“As far as sources in Congress tell me, the situation is under control, and the money won’t be lost – that’s the main thing,” David Arakhamia, head of President Volodymyr Zelensky's Servant of the People faction in parliament, told the Kyiv Independent.

But the episode appears to be the latest in which Ukraine’s top Western ally is drip-feeding weaponry supplies to Ukraine, on purpose or due to a lack of urgency, in an existential war waged by Russia which Zelensky’s administration has described as “genocidal.”

Addressing the annual Yalta European Strategy forum held in Kyiv on Sept. 13-14, Biden’s national security chief Jake Sullivan spoke of plans to announce a significant assistance package for Ukraine by the end of this month.

Yet the sense of many in Kyiv, which is shared with some European allies, is that while the U.S. has stepped up military assistance sharply, it is still not providing sufficient amounts and fast enough to help Ukraine decisively win the war.

“It is crucial that all states, and especially those like the United States, implement our agreements really promptly,” Zelensky said in his Sept. 14 evening address to the nation.

“Every delay in military packages has its negative consequences at the front. Every truly timely, fast delivery has a positive impact. I briefed the Congressmen on the current situation and the prospects,” he added.

Zelensky, who is to meet with Biden later this month in the U.S. for talks on future assistance and lifting of restrictions on using Western missiles to strike Russian territory, expressed the same frustration one day earlier about promised but not yet delivered military weaponry from Western allies without directly mentioning the $6 billion U.S. aid.

As he addressed the annual Yalta European Strategy meeting in Kyiv, Zelensky said that it’s “really difficult to hear the same answer every time – ‘we are working on it.’”

He also said that the talks on equipping Ukrainian frontline brigades with the West’s help had been ongoing “for months,” with the same vague answer from some “leaders and states that have made responsible commitments” earlier.

“Frankly, we are still far from fully implementing what we have agreed on a long time ago,” Zelensky added.

Washington’s delay from late 2023 into this spring in passing a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine contributed to the deteriorating situation on the eastern Donbas frontline, where Russia’s grinding offensive made advances.

In almost seven months of political infighting in the U.S. before the aid was allocated, Ukraine lost some key territories, including the city of Avdiivka, and suffered significant damage to its energy infrastructure around the country due to the lack of air defense systems to counter Russian missile strikes.

The legislation was first opposed but later approved by Republican legislators loyal to Donald Trump, who seeks to return as president in a Nov. 5 election against Vice President Kamala Harris.

Sense of urgency often lost despite sky-high stakes

The risk of yet another delay in crucial assistance from Ukraine’s top Western ally comes as the country’s Armed Forces, outgunned and outmanned, continue to battle Russia’s full-scale invasion two and a half years into the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War II.

And as Zelensky continues to press the U.S. and other Western allies for permission to use their long-range missile for strikes into Russian territory.

“We have seen this pattern time and again — delays in the allocation of funding, delays in deployment, and delays in deliveries,” Tymofiy Mylovanov, president of the Kyiv School of Economics and former advisor to Zelensky’s administration, told the Kyiv Independent.

“The sense of urgency is often lost in the Western capitals, but this directly translates into lives lost and an unsafer world. Simply irresponsible," Mylovanov said.

The Biden administration and some European leaders have in the past years expressed fears that arming Ukraine too much — in essence, giving it enough weapons to win the war —  could provoke Russia to escalate and potentially use nuclear weapons.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and others in his regime have made such threats. Repeating them recently, they said that the West would be at war with Russia if it allowed its long-range missiles to be used by Ukraine for strikes deep inside Russia.

Ukraine, which most recently seized a patch of Russian territory with the Kursk incursion, claims such threats are empty.

“Putin's threats do not work. Ukraine’s allies should not fall for them,” Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said in a Sept. 15 post on X, where he outlined how Russia has during the war repeatedly threatened escalation if Western allies armed Ukraine.

“Putin uses threats to weaken support for Ukraine. Instead, allies should boost it. Lift restrictions. Bolster Ukraine’s long-range strength, air shield, and economic and energy resilience. Fear and inaction only lead to deaths and crises. To restore peace, we need bravery, not fear,” Sybiha added.

Some influential members of both Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S. Congress have called for the Biden administration to lift restrictions on using Western missiles on Russian territory and to further boost long-term military assistance to Ukraine.

They also wish to swiftly resolve the $6 billion aid issue.

“It is highly disappointing that nearly $6 billion of the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) remains untouched as we near the end of the fiscal year,” Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, told the Kyiv Independent.

“The administration must utilize all remaining PDA to provide Ukraine with the capabilities it needs to win this war — just as Congress intended when it provided this authority in the national security supplemental earlier this year,” McCaul added.

Democratic Congressman Jim Costa told the Kyiv Independent, "We are set to work this out," adding that there might be some friction on the new appropriations package, but the issue is a priority.

When asked about the matter by the Kyiv Independent, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor said he was assured by a senior Pentagon official “not to worry” — that the funds would not expire.

“Six billion dollars is serious money… And there are two people in the U.S. government (who know the details of this question) that I talk to all the time… One of them is Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary for defense for arming Ukraine,” Taylor said during an informal press briefing in Kyiv.

Cooper “knows the details of this $6 billion… and she said, ‘Bill, don’t worry.’ And for her to tell me that, I take it,” Taylor said without providing any further details.

‘Dangerous’ delays as rogue states weaponry flows into Russia

But Mylovanov said the pattern of delays and restrictions on the use of weaponry provided "is very dangerous and in fact irresponsible.”

“It was so difficult getting the ($61 billion) supplemental passed. And now there is this bureaucratic (and political?) process that jeopardizes $6 billion,” Mylovanov quipped.

He pointed to uninterrupted missile and other weaponry supplies to Russia from rogue states Iran and North Korea.

"Iran and North Korea don't appear to be constrained by delays, permissions, and bureaucracy when sending weapons to Russia. Nor are they constraining Russia in how it can use their weapons,” Mylovanov said.

The Pentagon is seeking an extension from Congress of PDA authorities beyond the end of the fiscal year, a spokesperson told the Kyiv Independent.

“The Department will continue to provide drawdown packages in the near future," the Pentagon’s statement said.

Publicly, the Pentagon gave similarly nebulous assurances.

“I have no doubt that we are going to use everything we can that's available to us to make sure that we are continuing to provide Ukraine what it needs both in the short term and the long term,” Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh said during a press briefing on Sept. 5.

“We're in this fight with Ukraine for the long haul… So you're going to see us make use of those funds in any way possible.”

Despite Ukraine’s plea to lift restrictions on the use of long-range weapons to defend its cities, Singh said that it would have “very little strategic value”, since the U.S.-provided ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems) couldn’t reach most of the Russian airfields located beyond its 300-kilometers range, according to Pentagon’s intelligence.

Meanwhile, President Zelensky said in his speech on Sept. 13 that without the ability to strike inside Russia, ATACAMS in Ukraine are “pointless.” He added that he discussed the matter with the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy who visited Kyiv recently.

“I hope that after our conversation, there simply cannot be any unanswered questions about why Ukraine needs sufficient long-range capability,” Zelensky said.