Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Our vital interest in the Ukraine
All these career types are whining about our vital interest in the Ukraine. Many of whom served under Obama
And yet where was all the wailing when Potemkin marched into the Crimea in 2014? I'm sure Linzy Graham and the rest criticized Obama for doing nothing but I thought Obama was at his best when he did nothing. I don't recall any impeachment effort for Obama not sending weapons.
I didn't want to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine. Anyone here want to?
Trump asked why Europe and the other neighbors didn't carry their load. He ran on not sending American money overseas to corrupt governments.
Sounds impeachable to me.
0 ·
Comments
Daddy's a fucking mobster. He's shitty at it, as Representative Jordan like to point out. But that's not a great defense.
Anyone want to discuss the matter at hand? H's daddy issues are acting up again
Its like Trump ran on Europe paying their fair share. Remember when Trump took shots at NATO? I do. And now Europe is paying more
Another win
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/02/27/eu-and-ukraine-taking-breath-pub-75648
To its credit, the EU reacted quickly to the Ukraine crisis of 2014 by allocating generous funding for macro-economic stabilization. Since then, the EU has mobilized 3.4 billion euros (over $4.2 billion) through three packages of macro-finance assistance (MFA) for Ukraine, of which 600 million euros are still on hold.
I'm waiting for the HondoFSBros to start calling for impeachment hearings across Europe now...
HondoFSBros and their speed limit IQs...
Any adults want to take a stab at this or is it too tough?
You're just going to have to deal with it.
https://foxnews.com/politics/fiona-hill-once-opposed-sending-lethal-aid-to-ukraine-in-fight-with-russia
A former top Russia expert at the National Security Council who testified Thursday before the House Intelligence Committee as part of its ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Trump once argued against supplying weapons to Ukraine following the Russian annexation of Crimea.
Fiona Hill, who resigned from her post at the NSC in August, argued in a 2015 opinion piece published in The Washington Post that sending such lethal military aid to Ukraine could provoke Russia further. If Washington were to send weapons to Kiev, the piece argued, “the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught in an escalating military conflict with Russia.”
Hill, who at the time was the director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution, said in the piece that while the logic of sending arms to Ukraine may seem a “straightforward” way to counter Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression, the move could actually cause Moscow to ramp up its incursion into its neighbor and erode the Western alliance.
“It is hard to find effective alternatives to the current sanctions policy, but if we plunge headlong into sending weapons, we may lose our allies, and we may never have the opportunity to get things right,” Hill wrote, along with Clifford Gaddy, a senior fellow at Brookings.
Hill, however, has since changed her stance on providing lethal aid to Ukraine. She acknowledged in Thursday's hearing that she was not initially in favor of sending Javelin anti-tank missiles, but eventually learned that a "lot of work" was put into the planning and there was a system for "sustainability long-term of the Ukrainian military."
"So, I changed my mind," she testified.
She likewise told lawmakers in her deposition in October that when she was appointed to her position at the NSC by Trump, she saw that the administration “had a proper plan for the long-term sustainability of the Ukrainian military.”
Well a woman has the right to change her mind. I agree with her previous position as does Trump
Its a policy difference not an impeachable offense
How much in weapons?
Yet another witness EXONERATES Trump