5 Ukraine officials arrested for taking $40 million from the war fund. Just a drop in the bucket for how deep the corruption likely goes. Let's give troll Zelensky another $50 billion dollars just because
Last edited:
Ukraine is a corrupt cesspool? Ya don't say...
- Thread starter Pine_Tree1
- Start date
5 Ukraine officials arrested for taking $40 million from the war fund. Just a drop in the bucket for how deep the corruption likely goes. Let's give troll Zelensky another $50 billion dollars just because
Surprise surprise. What we’ve saying all along
Probably just a bunch of fall guys. That government is reportedly one of the most corrupt on earth
Interesting that those guys discussed Ukrainian corruption for nearly ten minutes and there was not a single word about the Russian gangster who runs a kleptocracy and openly assassinates the reporters and opposition figures who dare stand against him. It was Putin who launched this war and Putin is the one who says over and over again his goal is to reconstitute the USSR.
There’s never been a modern war zone that was corruption free. So we just let what is by far the most corrupt nation state on the planet, one that has clearly stated expansionists goals, roll over a European democracy?
There’s another thread about how evil China is and I tend to agree. China is watching how the west handles Ukraine very, very closely. Hand Ukraine to Putin now and their suspicion that the west lacks the will to oppose evil regimes is confirmed.
Everyone knows Russia is crazy corrupt but the United States hasn't given more $100 billion dollars to Russia for their war effort. I'm sure you see the difference and why this should matter to Americans.
There would no longer be a war in Ukraine if not for American money, intelligence, and frankly us prolonging it
Last edited:
They are a cheap investment when you consider that they are destroying Russia's Military capabilities.
China is watching. That is why November is so important.
My guess is the reason they didnt say anything about a guy in Russia is because it has zero to do w Ukraine. Just a hunch.
The investment us hardly cheep when were not properly funding other military areas, and as I've said in other threads, they're not touching their nuclear capabilities, which is the only thing that we ultimately care about or has any real strategic impact.
We lack the will to oppose plenty of evil regimes. Iran alone and ignoring other "bad actors" give the same message.
Kind of. There is not really another similar example we can reasonably compare to the first full-on invasion of a sovereign European (yes, that matters) country since 1941.
We spend billions every year opposing Iran, given I think you can include all of the support for Israel in that equation, right?
Do we really spend billions opposing Iran? We just gave them $6 billion back as well as easing oil embargos that have enriched them once again. Im not sure what you mean. They were broke 4 years ago.
Now that's an interesting take. Remind me why Ukraine is a war zone, and thus requires the billions in aid and equipment we are sending there?
Maybe a bit of money laundering going on.
Oh really? Seems like the same country was invaded by Russian under Obama and we did nothing.
Right, but we aren't sending aid to Russia, are we? Key difference there & why the discussion of corruption was happening.
Georgia? Crimea? Lack of a stronger US response for both arguably played a large part of the calculus for the current conflict.
I'm not arguing we should have done anything, but both were sovereign invasions. The billions to Iran is ridiculous, considering they are the world's leading funder of terrorism.
Edit: And no, I don't think supporting Israel is "opposing Iran" as much as supporting an Ally. If Iran were the only threat Israel faced, your argument would be stronger. But, I don't believe we are actively motivated by "opposing Iran" when we fund Israel. It's a benefit that goes into the calculus, sure.
While you have a point, you are also making my point for me. The 2013 annexation was not a "full-on" invasion where the goal was the take the entire country and replace the democratically elected regime with a Russia-allied ruler, which is what happened in 2022.
But our tepid response in 2013 absolutely contributed to Putin's current aggression, just as withdrawing support for Ukraine now would encourage Putin to look beyond Ukraine and send the wrong message to China and others.
So, what's your argument? More war? Against a nuclear-armed opponent? Which 'weakness' against evil is ok & which is not? Plenty of evil to oppose. What about China's evil genocide of the Uyghur? Do we go back to Afghanistan? The Taliban have continued their evil ways.
What's the end game in Ukraine? Keep funding the zombie? China wants us to continue the war, not end it.
Ok, nice deflection.
We could have stopped this long before any of this if the Dems hadn't stopped this guy.
Depends on who benefits. All about money and power. Same as it ever was.
The US is a corrupt cesspool. The Ukrainians learned from the best.
So I have a questions for many on this thread, I've heard lots of reason why we shouldn't aid Ukraine. What are the benefits for letting Putin invade/annex Ukraine exposing the following NATO member countries boarders to an aggressive Russia?
Poland
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
and pretty much have total control of the Black Sea except for the Turkish Straits. Why is it in the U.S's best interest to let this happen?
Poland
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
and pretty much have total control of the Black Sea except for the Turkish Straits. Why is it in the U.S's best interest to let this happen?
We need to know where that money is going. Wonder how much kickbacks these senators and Biden is getting out of this.
How do you stop them? He's not going to invade a NATO country. It's not good...but, I've yet to hear a valid way to stop Russia without the US entering the war.
Myself and every Dem agrees we need accountability. We got fleeced by the Afghanis to the tune of $2T dollars and they couldn't last 2 months with US backing. I want to know where every cent is going
This we agree with, with one caveat (not to go on a tangent...) but, we should have kept Bagram for many very good reasons. One of which is that the Taliban might not be in power. But, that's a discussion for a different day.
You my friend are wrong we give Iran money and we are doing very little opposing them.
I'm definitely not pro-war, but Russia is a nakedly expansionist regime and history has taught us that a leader like Putin does not just wake up one day and say, yeah, that's enough. Deal with him now or deal with him later.
So, if we tie this back to the start of the thread, my argument is that the existence of fraud in Ukraine is not reason enough to end our support. Of course, we should push for accountability regarding our aid to Ukraine, just as we should across every aspect of our massive DOD budgets.
Ukraine is making Russian forces suffer meaningful losses, and as long as they maintain the will and we continue to provide the equipment, we have every reason to believe Ukraine can continue to punish Russia for some time. They are defending their homeland, and the force multiplier of modern technology plays in their favor.
Do you think that if we end support now and Putin gets his way, that Russia somehow becomes less and not more of a threat?
Also there are signs this is having a negative effect on Putin. Right now tens of thousands of Russian are suffering through the coldest winter in decades with no heat. Think about that, -30 and no heat in the middle of a Russian winter. Wives are going all the way to Ukraine just in hopes of bringing their husbands home from war. Civil unrest there is starting to reach critical mass and if we can speed it along I saw we should.
We didn't deal with him previously...and how far are you willing to go in the future? There is no good answer here. We've been inconsistent with him over multiple administrations, and have no way of directly stopping him, outside of war, if he chooses to invade another country. What's the plan? Hope that he gives up? Hope that he doesn't do it again? Throwing money at Ukraine is a highly inefficient way of "dealing" with him.
It's reason to reassess the wildly irresponsible way we have spent and even sent cash. There should have been a plan, not tied to emotionally throwing money at a problem. I'm fine with responsible aid, tied to a specific strategy, with demonstrably helpful ways to defeat or dissuade Russia from continuing to fight.
Meaningful, but not strategically significant to us. Repeating myself, their nuclear arsenal will continue to keep us from stopping them from invading anybody that is not a NATO ally. Nothing they have lost affects any of our national strategy.
What do we do if Russia decides to employ a low-yield nuke? Is that worth escalating our involvement? Actively engaging? The more desperate Putin becomes, the more likely he would be to engage like that...And if he's not close to considering that....he's nowhere close to stopping (nor the Russian mil as hurt as claimed) & is clearly willing to wait us out for an extended time.
FWIW, I'm not sure I would trust any non-classified assessment re: Russia's losses. There is propaganda on all sides. It's either a stalemate or Russia is dominating & biding time. There is no sign that Ukraine is wearing down Putin's resolve. We can't hope Russian citizens will revolt or that Putin will die....both of which would be best-case scenario for us.
I reject the either/or. Russia is the same threat to us and the region, regardless of how Ukraine ends. There is a legit argument that prolonging the war increases the threat of a nuclear exchange. How do you balance that threat with any other hypothetical?
I want small-scale, smart support and not throwing cash at the problem or doing stupid stuff like buying Belgium-reject F-16s for Ukraine that will make no meaningful difference. I could be convinced that providing Ukraine with capability to strike Russia in Russia is a reasonable escalation, if it increases the chance of victory.
I want a plan, a timeline, and meaningful support from European allies, who have failed to live up to their fully promised support.
I want more economic sanctions that go farther and shut Russia off from outside support, I want to put pressure on China to stop supporting Russia. We have tools to do all of the above, but not the political will to do so, because it's far too easy to throw $$ at a problem and because we have become far too cozy with China and fear doing anything against them. We treat them like the Soup Nazi 😆 Their active & passive lobbying within the US system is nauseating & could be stopped, if we had the will to do so.
We have zero strategy to help Ukraine win. Hoping they survive until Russia gives up is a waste of time and resources. I fully reject our current strategy. Ukraine either wins or we cut our losses.
We have bigger, long-term problems we're facing than letting the prospect of another invasion by a 73 year old with reported health issues & a depleted military, conscript troops, and a massive Ukrainian rebuild incoming, continue to dictate how & when we engage or deter him. This full-on reaction mode by us with everything is non-sustainable.
Absolutely it is. The money laundering capital of the globe. It’s kinda like a Russian mafia state with absolutely zero rules.
Odd, I just read that Putin was never more popular with the Russian people. Reckon it just depends on who's propaganda one listens to. Don't remember where I saw that, but it sure is two opposing pov's.
Seeing that Putin has crushed or killed all opposition within Russia, I'd discount the validity of any polls coming originating in that country.
Interestingly, those who oppose Putin have a habit of "falling" out of windows to their death.
Last edited:
So wouldn't we want to take that safe haven away from Russia/Putin and bring them into the fold of other western nations?
The problem with that thought is, a lot of Western nations have exported their corruption to UKR. They aren’t a safe haven for Russia and never have been. Russia is pretty corrupt themself, as most communist nations are, and don’t need UKR to operate below level.
