322

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

submitted 7 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.

top 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 30 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Trump is still a useful idiot to Putin, and here's the evidence. How do his fans not see what's going on here? It's been obvious since well before the original election.

[-] Cannibal_MoshpitV3@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Intentionally robbing the school systems in GOP-dominated states of all critical thinking and reducing the necessity of teaching historical events that were the fault of conservative governments in the past.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

Because Trump's genius is in selling himself to morons so they aren't smart enough to see it.

[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

They don't care. They just wanna win. It's like a sporting event. Doesn't matter how the team plays all long as they win and your team loses. Being a loser is the worst possible outcome in the US for the current crop of Trump supporters. They had to buy "don't blame us we voted for Trump" flags last election just to let you know they abdicate all responsibility because their team lost.

[-] autotldr 1 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

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.

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.

National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson also said in a statement shared with CNN that the withdrawal from Avdiivka is a direct result of the foreign aid bill being stalled in Congress.

“Political gamesmanship has no role to play in what is fundamentally about the significance of standing with an ally as it endures an unprovoked aggression,” Harris told reporters following a bilateral meeting with Zelensky at the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

Biden on Friday criticized House lawmakers for taking a two-week break, calling it “outrageous” and telling reporters it’s “about time they step up” following the death of Russian opposition figure Navalny.

Ukraine has been facing renewed pressure across the eastern front in its war against Russia, compounded by ammunition and manpower shortages.

The original article contains 713 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[+] Jaytreeman@kbin.social -49 points 7 months ago

He was able to bypass the government to supply Israel.
He's using Ukraine as a political tool just like the Republicans.
US got them into this mess. Least they can do is support through the rest of the mess.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 37 points 7 months ago

Israel was buying weapons with cash so didn't need to go through Congress for money. If Ukraine showed up with cash, Biden could approve it too.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

This is probably part of the reason there's a push to let Ukraine use Russian sanctioned assets to pay for things

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago

Pretty much the entire reason. They really don't want to seize assets because that's the carrot for Russia to end the war and go home. The weapons are the stick. It's better to have a carrot and stick approach than selling off the carrots to buy more sticks.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Hadn't looked at it that way before, thanks for the insight!

[-] Jaytreeman@kbin.social 10 points 7 months ago

Thanks. Didn't know that was a factor

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

We actually did use it with Ukraine:

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/ukraine-non-standard-ammunition

I'm assuming they just don't want to use it with very large sums, as its supposed to be a measure for emergency situations. Using it with tens of billions worth would be very bad politically here in the US.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 8 points 7 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 7 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 7 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 7 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 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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 7 months ago

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

[-] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 months ago

US got who into what mess?

[-] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Weird, I didn't realize the little green men in 2014ish were American.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Are you saying America forced Putin to invade Ukraine?

[+] Jaytreeman@kbin.social -15 points 7 months ago

No.
The US pressured Putin to invade. Look up NATO expansion. Also what members of the US government had to say about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
There's no good guys here.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 11 points 7 months ago

The US pressured Putin to invade. Look up NATO expansion.

Let's recap for the people who still fall for this BS. A Russian diplomat claims that during some negotiations back in the 1980s, he was given a verbal promise that NATO would never move east. Everyone he claims was part of this negotiation claims it never happened, no evidence that it ever happened has ever come out, and, more importantly, it was never codified in any treaty. Although Russia has regularly used it to justify their aggression since then.

At one point, Ukraine started moving towards joining NATO, which pissed Putin off because he believes Ukraine to be part of Russia still. Ukraine elected a leader who claimed that he would remain neutral, but then decided to shift and get more cozy with Russia. They also decided to, because it was angering Russia and they didn't want to end up in a war with them, shelve the idea of joining NATO. However, most Ukrainians wanted closer ties with Europe, so there was a revolution who ousted him. In response to this, Russia, who was unhappy with this, invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. All the good it did them not joining NATO!

Falling for the dumb "appeasement" strategy again, they let Russia keep the stolen land. Then Russia, started funding (violating an actual written treaty) separatists in the east of the country, helping it get ripped apart by a civil war. So then Ukraine started talking about joining NATO again because, he, Putin just proved that not joining NATO wasn't going to stop his aggression in the country. And then Putin claimed "hey! Remember that treaty we made up about not expanding NATO? Well, you're violating it so we have no choice but to invade Ukraine." And a bunch of rubes fell for this line and think it's actually US and NATO that started this war, and not an imperialistic and aggressive Putin who started the war by invading a neighbor and illegally grabbing their land.

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago

Not to mention the treaty after the fall of the Soviet Union where Ukraine would give up it's nukes if Russia and the US would give assurances (though not guarantees) that each would help Ukraine if the other tried to invade.

So really US support of Ukraine is following the spirit of that treaty.

In other words, Putin is a rat faced liar.

[-] Jaytreeman@kbin.social -1 points 7 months ago

I didn't reference the events that you did.
What was the purpose of NATO? Is it still expanding?
Putin lying about the 'treaty' is more about internal propaganda.

https://academic.oup.com/dh/article-abstract/44/2/237/5699276?login=false

Why are people so against the possibility that the US government could be doing that again, but in Ukraine now?

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago

What was the purpose of NATO?

NATO is a defensive alliance. Kinda seemed unnecessary with the fall of the Soviet Union, but with Russia starting land wars in Europe, has become extremely relevant again. Basically just prevents other countries from invading NATO countries. Putin doesn't like it because he wants to invade countries. Countries like joining NATO because they don't like being invaded.

Is it still expanding?

Yes. Finland has joined and Sweden is soon to join. After Putin's invasion of Ukraine they didn't want to also be invaded. They never joined during the Cold War, they weren't as worried about the Soviet Union doing something as they are about Putin trying to attack them. So Putin has actually created the latest "expansion" of NATO, and now has a significantly longer border with NATO because of Finland joining. If NATO was the concern, this is a strategic defeat for Russia no matter the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

Why are people so against the possibility that the US government could be doing that again, but in Ukraine now?

Because it's not at all the same situation. Ukraine is a democracy. Afghanistan had a Soviet puppet government the the Soviets were using their military to prop up.

Besides, this kind of "trap" depends on Russia wanting to invade another country. It can be easily avoided by simply not invading another country.

A lot of this logic relies on Russia having the right to invade Ukraine. It does not. Ukrainians have the right to join or not join NATO. It's their decision, not anyone else's. If Ukrainians want to join NATO, it does not give Russia the right to invade to prevent it from happening.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

I'm not against the possibility. Where did you get that idea? If you had some convincing evidence that this was the case, I would be interested in seeing it.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

The US pressured Putin to invade.

What nonsense. As if the US could push Putin around.

[-] FidiFadi@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

We seriously cannot expect the USA/EU to bail out Russian Federation every time for their poor foreign policy decisions. No international order can be sustained that way.

[-] rdri@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

The US pressured Putin to invade

By what means exactly? Are you going to also claim Poland pressured Hitler to invade? Because that's what Putin claims.

Look up NATO expansion.

Did you look it up yourself? Latest inclusions were after the invasion.

this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024

322 points (97.6% liked)

politics

18894 readers

6219 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.
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.
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