322

Biden blames ‘congressional inaction’ for Ukrainian withdrawal of key town in call with Zelensky (www.cnn.com)

submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

President Joe Biden, in a call Saturday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, directly tied Ukraine’s withdrawal from the key town of Avdiivka to Congress’ inability to pass further aid for the country’s effort to fend off Russia’s invasion.

“This morning, Ukraine’s military was forced to withdraw from Avdiivka after Ukrainian soldiers had to ration ammunition due to dwindling supplies as a result of congressional inaction, resulting in Russia’s first notable gains in months. President Biden emphasized the need for Congress to urgently pass the national security supplemental funding bill to resupply Ukrainian forces,” according to a White House readout of the call.

The call bookended a week defined by US attempts to reassert leadership on the world stage. It also highlighted renewed urgency to pass additional funds for Ukraine amid the withdrawal from Avdiivka, a key town that in recent months became one of the most fiercely contested battles on the eastern front, and the news of Kremlin critic Alexey Navalny’s death.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

It has nothing to do with the amount. From your link:

"The Government of Ukraine has requested to buy"

That wasn't the US giving weapons. It was Ukraine buying them. Ukraine can buy weapons at any time because purchases can be approved by the President. But giving money requires Congressional approval.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Not quite.

When we do Foreign Military Financing programs, we give a set amount of money that the other government then pays us back from, buying what they wish. So, Israel pays us for our weapons. Just, with money we gave them. They also buy weapons from us with their own money, we only cover a fairly small percentage of their total defense budget.

The Arms Export Control Act covers the situation regardless.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Export_Control_Act

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Just, with money we gave them.

Yes but that money was already given to them by Congress. So the purchase of weapons using money they already had could be approved by Biden.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

But it still falls under the purview of the Arms Export Control Act. Congress gets oversight over more than just money, if they pass a law that gives them that authority. Which they did back in the 70s.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Congress can vote on it if they want to. They aren't required to vote. There's also a loophole that started in the 80's that effectively lets the President bypass Congress because he can veto which requires another vote with a 2/3 majority to override a veto. So Congress doesn't even bother voting.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Bypass is the wrong word there. Not having the votes doesn't mean they've been bypassed.

this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024

322 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19080 readers

3581 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News