Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-13-2024

Quote:I don't see an "assault" being conducted in either of these movies. I see isolated vehicles moving across open ground where they probably thought the were relatively safe.

The vans were driving over shell pocked open territory between Russian and Ukrainian lines. Not in any sort of rear area.

https://x.com/moklasen/status/1778408791370878984

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-13-2024

Perhaps off-topic^2 but I do hope the Iranian missile attack on Israel is just a "gesture" and both sides can declare victory. It looks like little damage has been done so far. Hopefully Israel will not retaliate in kind. The last thing Ukraine needs is a full-scale war in the middle east completely pushing their problems to the back burner. I hope both sides, Iran and Israel, will take a deep breath and stand down. Neither side wants a direct conflict. Hopefully they will act accordingly.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-13-2024

Israel has said they will respond. Hopefully the US gives them a short leash because I certainly agree that a widening conflict would be bad for everyone, Ukraine included.

That said, the hundreds of shaheds used in this attack are less that could go to Russia. And Iran will probably want to keep plenty in reserve for their own needs. And maybe this is more impetus for Johnson to bring the Ukraine/Israel aid bill to the floor, though who knows.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-13-2024

(04-13-2024, 06:05 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Israel has said they will respond. Hopefully the US gives them a short leash because I certainly agree that a widening conflict would be bad for everyone, Ukraine included.

That said, the hundreds of shaheds used in this attack are less that could go to Russia. And Iran will probably want to keep plenty in reserve for their own needs. And maybe this is more impetus for Johnson to bring the Ukraine/Israel aid bill to the floor, though who knows.

Totally agree. I would hope Israel would give themselves a very short leash and do nothing. They don't have to prove they are "tough". Nobody questions that. Not so for Iran, but they have done what they could. Let us hope both sides will now prove the are not stupid and stand down. As far as Johnson bringing the bill to a vote goes, it would for sure pass. The question is whether he has the moral courage to do it and whether he believes enough Democrats will vote for him as speaker to avoid chaos.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 04-15-2024

(04-13-2024, 06:42 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(04-13-2024, 06:05 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Israel has said they will respond. Hopefully the US gives them a short leash because I certainly agree that a widening conflict would be bad for everyone, Ukraine included.

That said, the hundreds of shaheds used in this attack are less that could go to Russia. And Iran will probably want to keep plenty in reserve for their own needs. And maybe this is more impetus for Johnson to bring the Ukraine/Israel aid bill to the floor, though who knows.

Totally agree. I would hope Israel would give themselves a very short leash and do nothing. They don't have to prove they are "tough". Nobody questions that. Not so for Iran, but they have done what they could. Let us hope both sides will now prove the are not stupid and stand down. As far as Johnson bringing the bill to a vote goes, it would for sure pass. The question is whether he has the moral courage to do it and whether he believes enough Democrats will vote for him as speaker to avoid chaos.

Getting both sides to agree to stand down from further attacks may well be very difficult. I fear that Israel is more likely to launch another attack simply due to who is running their country and we have never shown an absolutely willingness to cut off the money and weapons we provide.  we talk a good game but we don't play like we are serious. I think there is a great chance of a miscalculation by one side or the other.  The fact that Iran and its "allies" launched so many weapons and so few go through may contribute to further miscalculation. How long is Jordan willing to "defend" Israel and how long are the UK and the USA willing to continue to burn through anti missle and drone inventories?  Does Iran have enough drones and cruise type missles to eventually saturate the Israeli defenses?
I think an Israeli attack on targets in Iran proper is probably a bridge too far.  Such an attack would probably trigger an expansion of the war. I don't see how Iran can maintain its standing in the anti Israel world if it allows such attack to go seriously unpunished. I fear our ability or willingness to give Israel a short leash is very weak.
I second your hope that Johnson illustrates the moral courage to do the right thing and bring the bill to a vote. If he does, then I think the Democrats owe him a vote of support if they try and dump him as speaker.  At this point in time there is a brobdingnagian need for the protagonists in the Middle East and our politicians at home to act in the best interests of their countries and the world rather than making their consituencies happy. I just have to say I am not sure that is possible.

This CNN article sums up the mess. A lot depends on whether cooler heads hold sway. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/15/middleeast/israel-war-cabinet-iran-debate-intl/index.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-15-2024

(04-15-2024, 05:49 AM)GK3 Wrote:  Getting both sides to agree to stand down from further attacks may well be very difficult. I fear that Israel is more likely to launch another attack simply due to who is running their country and we have never shown an absolutely willingness to cut off the money and weapons we provide.  we talk a good game but we don't play like we are serious.

Israel knows full well they are our only viable ally in the middle east. Threatening to "cut them off" isn't credible because doing so would cede a complete victory to Iran. They believe (correctly IMO) that we won't do that. There is a "red line" somewhere but it has been proven by experience it is very hard to cross. I believe the administration sent the right message by simply saying we wouldn't "participate" in a direct attack on Iran. Considering who is running Israel ATM it would be unwise to publicly "threaten" Israel. It would look like interfering in their "internal affairs" and would quite possibly "force" the government into doing exactly what we don't want them to do. This is especially true when they don't believe our threat anyway.

Quote:I think there is a great chance of a miscalculation by one side or the other. 

Totally agree. As you point out, the internal political situation in Israel doesn't give one lots of confidence in a "measured" response.

Quote:The fact that Iran and its "allies" launched so many weapons and so few go through may contribute to further miscalculation. How long is Jordan willing to "defend" Israel

Jordan's position is they were merely "defending their airspace". I suspect they were told by both the US and Israel to "Defend your airspace or we will do it for you". Jordan will do so as long as they can get support for their F-16s, which is probably forever.

Quote:and how long are the UK and the USA willing to continue to burn through anti missle and drone inventories?  Does Iran have enough drones and cruise type missles to eventually saturate the Israeli defenses?

Good question. Nobody knows the answers yet, but we all may unfortunately find out. Israel has the capability to shoot down essentially all the drones and cruise missiles launched against it by using the IAF. They have an adequate AWACS system, although they greatly benefit from the "early warning" the US AWACS assets can give them and from the availability of tanker support. To do this the IAF would have to violate the airspace of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Saudi Arabia. They need "room to operate". If they get that, they will be fine against drones and cruise missiles. The operational tempo could, over time, grind them down. I doubt Iran has the resources to do that.

Against short-range ballistic missiles the Iron Dome and its successor work well, but they are also subject to saturation. IMO Iran has a better chance to at least locally run Israel out of reloads. It will take lots of missiles, but these missiles are very cheap and Hezbollah already has lots of them. Increasing that inventory significantly in the short term may be impossible because of "shipping" difficulties.

IMO the real danger is medium range ballistic missiles launched from Iran proper. As Israel has pointed out, their only defense is the Arrow system and that there is no "second shot" option if one misses/malfunctions. It is entirely possible that Iran can launch more such missiles than Israel can intercept. This is especially the case if Iran uses lots of cheap "decoys" that look like weapons but are just radar targets. It is even more possible that Iran can run Israel out of Arrow interceptors over a period of days. Of course, as that point approaches Israel will feel compelled to directly and kinetically attack the launchers and those that operate them. Not Good.

Quote:I think an Israeli attack on targets in Iran proper is probably a bridge too far.  Such an attack would probably trigger an expansion of the war. I don't see how Iran can maintain its standing in the anti Israel world if it allows such attack to go seriously unpunished. I fear our ability or willingness to give Israel a short leash is very weak.

IMO all true. Unfortunately IMO it may already be inevitable there will be a wider war. If Iran believes they "got away" with direct missile attacks on Israel they will inevitably repeat them somewhere down the road. Israel as a matter of "normal operation" kills Iranian Revolutionary Guard bigwigs whenever possible, even if not in "retaliation" for a particular Iranian action. Iran will "respond" again, and the second time will not be the charm. This mess needs to stop NOW, but it probably won't.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-15-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-admits-iranian-ballistic-missiles-133544742.html

Some/all of the ballistic missiles that landed in the Negev may have been smaller missiles launched by the Houthis. These missiles would not have been targets of the Arrow system but rather Iron Dome/David's Sling. The cited systems have a known, somewhat high, miss rate. The Negev also isn't exactly all that populated so the number of "layers" of defense may be minimal. These "smaller" ballistic missiles are a problem, but their warheads aren't large and they are very imprecise. As a result, unless the Irainians get lucky, they won't do much damage.

Not much information has been released about how many MRBMs were fired from Iran, how many were detected and designated as targets for the Arrow missiles, and how many were actually intercepted. I suspect the public will never know. However, if I were in the Israeli government I would want these answers before I made any decisions. I would also want to know how many MRBMs the intelligence community thinks Iran has and how many are they building per unit time. Same data for Israel's Arrow system as well as info on how many additional Arrow launchers can be deployed and when.  These are the parameters that will inform Israel's freedom of action.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 04-15-2024

(04-15-2024, 08:05 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(04-15-2024, 05:49 AM)GK3 Wrote:  Getting both sides to agree to stand down from further attacks may well be very difficult. I fear that Israel is more likely to launch another attack simply due to who is running their country and we have never shown an absolutely willingness to cut off the money and weapons we provide.  we talk a good game but we don't play like we are serious.

Israel knows full well they are our only viable ally in the middle east. Threatening to "cut them off" isn't credible because doing so would cede a complete victory to Iran. They believe (correctly IMO) that we won't do that. There is a "red line" somewhere but it has been proven by experience it is very hard to cross. I believe the administration sent the right message by simply saying we wouldn't "participate" in a direct attack on Iran. Considering who is running Israel ATM it would be unwise to publicly "threaten" Israel. It would look like interfering in their "internal affairs" and would quite possibly "force" the government into doing exactly what we don't want them to do. This is especially true when they don't believe our threat anyway.

Quote:I think there is a great chance of a miscalculation by one side or the other. 

Totally agree. As you point out, the internal political situation in Israel doesn't give one lots of confidence in a "measured" response.

Quote:The fact that Iran and its "allies" launched so many weapons and so few go through may contribute to further miscalculation. How long is Jordan willing to "defend" Israel

Jordan's position is they were merely "defending their airspace". I suspect they were told by both the US and Israel to "Defend your airspace or we will do it for you". Jordan will do so as long as they can get support for their F-16s, which is probably forever.

Quote:and how long are the UK and the USA willing to continue to burn through anti missle and drone inventories?  Does Iran have enough drones and cruise type missles to eventually saturate the Israeli defenses?

Good question. Nobody knows the answers yet, but we all may unfortunately find out. Israel has the capability to shoot down essentially all the drones and cruise missiles launched against it by using the IAF. They have an adequate AWACS system, although they greatly benefit from the "early warning" the US AWACS assets can give them and from the availability of tanker support. To do this the IAF would have to violate the airspace of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and possibly Saudi Arabia. They need "room to operate". If they get that, they will be fine against drones and cruise missiles. The operational tempo could, over time, grind them down. I doubt Iran has the resources to do that.

Against short-range ballistic missiles the Iron Dome and its successor work well, but they are also subject to saturation. IMO Iran has a better chance to at least locally run Israel out of reloads. It will take lots of missiles, but these missiles are very cheap and Hezbollah already has lots of them. Increasing that inventory significantly in the short term may be impossible because of "shipping" difficulties.

IMO the real danger is medium range ballistic missiles launched from Iran proper. As Israel has pointed out, their only defense is the Arrow system and that there is no "second shot" option if one misses/malfunctions. It is entirely possible that Iran can launch more such missiles than Israel can intercept. This is especially the case if Iran uses lots of cheap "decoys" that look like weapons but are just radar targets. It is even more possible that Iran can run Israel out of Arrow interceptors over a period of days. Of course, as that point approaches Israel will feel compelled to directly and kinetically attack the launchers and those that operate them. Not Good.

Quote:I think an Israeli attack on targets in Iran proper is probably a bridge too far.  Such an attack would probably trigger an expansion of the war. I don't see how Iran can maintain its standing in the anti Israel world if it allows such attack to go seriously unpunished. I fear our ability or willingness to give Israel a short leash is very weak.

IMO all true. Unfortunately IMO it may already be inevitable there will be a wider war. If Iran believes they "got away" with direct missile attacks on Israel they will inevitably repeat them somewhere down the road. Israel as a matter of "normal operation" kills Iranian Revolutionary Guard bigwigs whenever possible, even if not in "retaliation" for a particular Iranian action. Iran will "respond" again, and the second time will not be the charm. This mess needs to stop NOW, but it probably won't.

I hope there is a Red line somewhere in this mess, but I am increasingly of the opinion there isn't one that has been clearly defined by the US. It seems to me that the two sides are locked into a continually escalating game of "Get Even". When Israel attacked the Iranian Embassy in Syria, it upped the level of the Get Even game. Now Iran had to attack Israel in some way. It elected a way that I am sure they felt wouldn't do too much damage but that they could point to as them taking action. Here is where cooler heads need to step in. Another Get Even attack, this one almost certainly bigger and better than the attack on the embassy will only require the same from Iran. Their role of leaders in the Jihad against Israel is at stake. As we showed after 9/11, the game of Get Even is very hard to win.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-15-2024

(04-15-2024, 01:27 PM)GK3 Wrote:  I hope there is a Red line somewhere in this mess, but I am increasingly of the opinion there isn't one that has been clearly defined by the US. It seems to me that the two sides are locked into a continually escalating game of "Get Even".  When Israel attacked the Iranian Embassy in Syria, it upped the level of the Get Even game.  Now Iran had to attack Israel in some way.  It elected a way that I am sure they felt wouldn't do too much damage but that they could point to as them taking action.  Here is where cooler heads need to step in.  Another Get Even attack, this one almost certainly bigger and better than the attack on the embassy will only require the same from Iran.  Their role of leaders in the Jihad against Israel is at stake.  As we showed after 9/11, the game of Get Even is very hard to win.

All true. One problem with making a "public declaration of a red line" is that you have to actually be willing act if it is crossed. As we have seen in Syria, that can be an even bigger problem. That is why a policy of "strategic ambiguity" is often the only possible public position. You are of course correct about the "Get Even game. Iran gave Israel an off ramp. Lets hope they take it. Lets also hope that Iran doesn't regard Israel's next "hostile act" (which will inherently come in any case) as a response to the recent attack by Iran.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 04-15-2024

(04-15-2024, 02:38 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(04-15-2024, 01:27 PM)GK3 Wrote:  I hope there is a Red line somewhere in this mess, but I am increasingly of the opinion there isn't one that has been clearly defined by the US. It seems to me that the two sides are locked into a continually escalating game of "Get Even".  When Israel attacked the Iranian Embassy in Syria, it upped the level of the Get Even game.  Now Iran had to attack Israel in some way.  It elected a way that I am sure they felt wouldn't do too much damage but that they could point to as them taking action.  Here is where cooler heads need to step in.  Another Get Even attack, this one almost certainly bigger and better than the attack on the embassy will only require the same from Iran.  Their role of leaders in the Jihad against Israel is at stake.  As we showed after 9/11, the game of Get Even is very hard to win.

All true. One problem with making a "public declaration of a red line" is that you have to actually be willing act if it is crossed. As we have seen in Syria, that can be an even bigger problem. That is why a policy of "strategic ambiguity" is often the only possible public position. You are of course correct about the "Get Even game. Iran gave Israel an off ramp. Lets hope they take it. Lets also hope that Iran doesn't regard Israel's next "hostile act" (which will inherently come in any case) as a response to the recent attack by Iran.

I see the point of no making public declaration of a red line, but if you don't more or less let it be known what the red line is, someone may make a decision triggering the red line when they didn't really want to do that.  Israel and Iran are playing with fire and I am not sure either side knows when to let go or is even willing to let go. Iran did give Israel an offramp and it all probably depends on who holds sway in Israeli government.
If Israel's next act is to again attack Iran itself, in whatever form, then things could get messy.  Strikes against Iranian client states might not cause a response.  
Other questions I have is how does Israel plan to deal with what is left of Gaza. I think they would like to force all resident's of Gaza to leave and to absorb Gaza into Israel.  Not sure they can get away with that one internationally, but then I am not sure they care. I think they will have as much luck destroying Hamas as we had destroying Al Queda.  If they don't take over Gaza, they will still have to occupy it for a long while and there will be a cost to that in the long term.
There will be a certain political cost to those running Israel if these non state actors continue to launch drones and missles and force Israel to more or less stay on a war footing for a long time.   It is a tough game to play in and an even tougher game to get out of.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 04-15-2024

(04-15-2024, 04:53 PM)GK3 Wrote:  If Israel's next act is to again attack Iran itself, in whatever form, then things could get messy.  Strikes against Iranian client states might not cause a response.  

Just to be clear, Israel did not attack Iran itself.  Israel attacked a "consulate" building in Syria.

(04-15-2024, 04:53 PM)GK3 Wrote:  If they don't take over Gaza, they will still have to occupy it for a long while and there will be a cost to that in the long term.

What does this mean?  Israel can leave Gaza anytime it decides to do so.

(04-15-2024, 04:53 PM)GK3 Wrote:  There will be a certain political cost to those running Israel if these non state actors continue to launch drones and missles and force Israel to more or less stay on a war footing for a long time.   It is a tough game to play in and an even tougher game to get out of.

It's likely that those currently running Israel will be voted out in the 2026 election for a myriad of missteps, most importantly for allowing the attack from Gaza to happen in the first place.  To the extent you're arguing that the coalition will lose support as a result of responding too aggressively, I could not disagree more.  The Israeli public strongly favors an aggressive response to Hamas' unprovoked slaughter, rape, and abduction of thousands of civilians.  I understand there's a principled basis for Israel to temper its response, but the supposed political benefit of a tempered response is non-existent.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-15-2024

Getting back to Ukraine, it seems there will be some sort of vote on aid this week, though it's unclear to me exactly what things will be voted on. See below for more details, though perhaps not much more clarity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/us/politics/johnson-israel-ukraine-aid-house-vote.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-15-2024

(04-15-2024, 04:53 PM)GK3 Wrote:  I see the point of no making public declaration of a red line, but if you don't more or less let it be known what the red line is, someone may make a decision triggering the red line when they didn't really want to do that. 

I fully agree. I fear the administration hasn't actually figured out where the "red line(s)", if there are any. For that reason they have probably give the Israelis equivocations and mush. I could be wrong, but when one thinks about it setting up red lines involves a lot of guessing abot both Israel's and Iran's plans. Not easy to do.

Quote:Israel and Iran are playing with fire and I am not sure either side knows when to let go or is even willing to let go. Iran did give Israel an offramp and it all probably depends on who holds sway in Israeli government.

Agree.

Quote:If Israel's next act is to again attack Iran itself, in whatever form, then things could get messy.  Strikes against Iranian client states might not cause a response.  
Other questions I have is how does Israel plan to deal with what is left of Gaza. I think they would like to force all resident's of Gaza to leave and to absorb Gaza into Israel.  Not sure they can get away with that one internationally, but then I am not sure they care. I think they will have as much luck destroying Hamas as we had destroying Al Queda.  If they don't take over Gaza, they will still have to occupy it for a long while and there will be a cost to that in the long term.

IMO Israel doesn't want to occupy Gaza one second more than they have to. They tried that once before and it didn't work. There is no way they are going to drive out all Palestinians. The world community (and the Palestinians) won't let them do it. IMO what Israel wants is 1) Ideally Egypt takes over governance of Gaza possibly supported by money from other Arab States, the US, and the UN. UNRWA would ideally not be involved but Israel may accept their presence 2) A consortium of other Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, UAE and Bahrain takes over governance and all (that haven't already) accept Israels right to exist. Both these alternatives keep Iran out of Gaza, which all these actors very much desire. Both solutions are IMO long shots, but that is what IMO Israel desires. The third option isn't at all Israels favorite, but that would be to install a rejuvenated Palestinian Authority as the governing authority, funded by the same actors plus Israel itself. Good luck to them. As you say
it is a tough game to play in and an even tougher game to get out of.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-15-2024

The Israel-Palestine thread already got closed folks.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-15-2024

(04-15-2024, 08:46 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  The Israel-Palestine thread already got closed folks.

Ack.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-17-2024

Nothing terribly new here, other than Ukraine now openly stating the obvious. They could only do the Monty Python "It's only a flesh wound" for so long.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-trouble-already-mdash-now-151430041.html

There were always many more ways Ukraine could lose this war than there were ways it could win it. I must admit that while in the past the west/US haven't exactly operated particularly intelligently, I never though Ukraine would lose because they couldn't get enough artillery ammunition.  If the necessary legislation passes the House this week, I wonder how quickly the US can deliver a supply of Patriots and 155 mm shells? Have we got it all queued up and ready to go, or will we just cut the reqs and take 3 or more months to deliver? By then it may be "Return to sender. Addressee deceased".

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-17-2024

Looks like the bills in the house really do add up pretty much to the passed senate bill, with vote planned Saturday. Includes humanitarian and economic support aid.

Interesting bit here-

Quote:SEC. 505. (a) TRANSFER OF LONG-RANGE ATACMS REQUIRED

"As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall transfer long range Army Tactical Missile Systems to the Government of Ukraine"

Though reading the text of the bill, immediately after that section it says if the President determines transferring long range ATACMS is detrimental to US security, then he doesn't have to. So I guess it's really just a suggestion.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1780657788751958230

Better late than never I guess.

.....

And on the topic of ATACMS, Ukraine seemingly used some of the shorter ranged ones that were provided to hit a Russian airbase on Crimea. 3 S400 TELs and radar claimed destroyed at least. They've used the few provided to good effect.

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1780561156479856931

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 04-17-2024

Fingers crossed that Johnson has the 2/3 needed for suspension of rules.  Could be a minefield with 4 separate votes.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-17-2024

(04-17-2024, 10:58 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Looks like the bills in the house really do add up pretty much to the passed senate bill, with vote planned Saturday. Includes humanitarian and economic support aid.

Interesting bit here-

Quote:SEC. 505. (a) TRANSFER OF LONG-RANGE ATACMS REQUIRED

"As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall transfer long range Army Tactical Missile Systems to the Government of Ukraine"

Though reading the text of the bill, immediately after that section it says if the President determines transferring long range ATACMS is detrimental to US security, then he doesn't have to. So I guess it's really just a suggestion.

You are right it is a "suggestion", but a pretty pointed one. It may be true that the Army is dragging its feet pretty hard and the Congress felt they needed to give the President an "out". I hope he doesn't take the off ramp and goes ahead. Russia probably isn't ready for really "deep strike" MRBMs and Ukraine can do some real damage short term. We don't really know if Russia has a viable defense against these missiles. If nothing else, knowing they do/don't would be valuable. Perhaps bridge tolls need to rise in Crimea :-).

Quote:https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1780657788751958230

Better late than never I guess.

.....

And on the topic of ATACMS, Ukraine seemingly used some of the shorter ranged ones that were provided to hit a Russian airbase on Crimea. 3 S400 TELs and radar claimed destroyed at least. They've used the few provided to good effect.

https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1780561156479856931

Great pictures. Ukraine is clearly still attempting to cut down Russia's air defense. It may be those S-400s were defending some other assets (in addition to the airfield) that are now without defense against ALCMs.

(04-17-2024, 01:36 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  Fingers crossed that Johnson has the 2/3 needed for suspension of rules.  Could be a minefield with 4 separate votes.

Indeed it could. One would think that sending up four bills to the Senate would be fine. The Senate could then quickly pass four separate bills and call it good. Combining them together in the House after they pass shouldn't be necessary IMO.

I actually believe keeping separate issues separate is a "good thing". It makes sense to some members to aid Ukraine and Taiwan but not Israel. Other members may prefer the exact opposite. I think a majority supports all four bills, but the leadership often wants to put members in a situation where in order to do "good" (as they see it), they have to vote for an omnibus that also contains "bad".  No good reason that should ever be done IMO.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 04-17-2024

I am agnostic as to whether it's better or worse to separate the bills.  I want all of them to pass, and whichever gives the best chance of that happening would be fine with me.  With that said, I would not want to be the majority whip charged with counting votes on 4 separate bills that potentially have markedly different bases of support.  Just as I don't want to try counting votes, I also am not counting chickens until this plan hatches.

---