[dabigv13]

Biden can't unilaterally donate F16s to Ukraine. He has to use budgeted funds to do so. If he had used those funds back in 2022 to send F16s as you wished he had, Ukraine would be in much worse shape today with regards to artillery shells and air defense. F16s cost several hundred million dollars.

On the subject of Abrams, the US position from early on was that it would not be the best use of limited funds to send lots of them. Ukraine loudly kept demanding them, probably for their own domestic political reasons more than battlefield considerations, as a handful of Abrams won't/wouldn't make a large difference on the battlefield, but every new Western weapon supplied is loudly touted and celebrated in Ukraine. The Abrams of course counted against the appropriated funds just like an F16 would.

OK, so you say Biden should use some creative accounting to still somehow send F16s. Maybe he could do that, but he'd definitely be impeached for it. So here again we have domestic politics circumscribing the possible.

[dabigv13]

Biden can't unilaterally donate F16s to Ukraine. He has to use budgeted funds to do so. If he had used those funds back in 2022 to send F16s as you wished he had, Ukraine would be in much worse shape today with regards to artillery shells and air defense. F16s cost several hundred million dollars.

On the subject of Abrams, the US position from early on was that it would not be the best use of limited funds to send lots of them. Ukraine loudly kept demanding them, probably for their own domestic political reasons more than battlefield considerations, as a handful of Abrams won't/wouldn't make a large difference on the battlefield, but every new Western weapon supplied is loudly touted and celebrated in Ukraine. The Abrams of course counted against the appropriated funds just like an F16 would.

OK, so you say Biden should use some creative accounting to still somehow send F16s. Maybe he could do that, but he'd definitely be impeached for it. So here again we have domestic politics circumscribing the possible.

[Goose]

I agree with almost all, except the part about politics and strategic thinking. It has nothing to do with what party you belong to wants but what the people at the top believe and want.  Long ago, far away in another galaxy, I was told, face to face by a three star that the intelligence report my unit had put together was contrary to what the NCA wanted to hear and I was to withdraw it. 

I understand what you say here, I think :-). My point was that the NCA, at least at the very top, doesn't often chose it's foreign policy based on what they believe will get them the most votes. They generally want do "do the right thing", although what that is will be determined partially by the president's biases, values, and "knowledge". They do want to minimize immediate negative consequences to the public, but they will also look at "the threat" long-term and chose a policy that will minimize the threat's overall ability to damage the US. There are exceptions where the NCA just did what they thought the public wanted, but they are rare.
 
OTOH those that serve the NCA quickly find out what the NCA wants to hear. Those that want to get promoted ensure that their actions conform to the "desired" NCA solution. This process is a "political" process inside the government that is similar to politics inside businesses. Choosing not to please the boss because you disagree with him isn't an easy choice and unfortunately not often made. Sometimes not sending "unwanted" data upstream is justified by the assertion that it won't do any good. Of course, if you didn't know the three star pretty well, you couldn't calibrate whether he was just trying to avoid a "black mark", agreed but really didn't believe it would help, or disagreed and needed a plausible excuse to shoot it down :-).

Your point about the fact that it is imperative that the "political" side of the strategy succeed is probably by far the most important comment in all of this.  Too often it doesn't turn out the way the political side wanted. Too often the political side in office won't listen to those with differing opinions. Human nature makes tough decisions even tougher.

Agree, especially with the last two. I have been involved in that at several different levels, and it is often quite discouraging. For some reason saying "I told you so" doesn't feel too good 10 years later, especially when the "mistake" will simply be buried, not acknowledged. However, the "political" side I was concerned about in this particular case is attempting to ensure your strategy will not fail because after a certain point the public simply won't let you do it. It may be necessary to ensure they are continuously well-informed. That often isn't easy to do.

[Goose]

I agree with almost all, except the part about politics and strategic thinking. It has nothing to do with what party you belong to wants but what the people at the top believe and want.  Long ago, far away in another galaxy, I was told, face to face by a three star that the intelligence report my unit had put together was contrary to what the NCA wanted to hear and I was to withdraw it. 

I understand what you say here, I think :-). My point was that the NCA, at least at the very top, doesn't often chose it's foreign policy based on what they believe will get them the most votes. They generally want do "do the right thing", although what that is will be determined partially by the president's biases, values, and "knowledge". They do want to minimize immediate negative consequences to the public, but they will also look at "the threat" long-term and chose a policy that will minimize the threat's overall ability to damage the US. There are exceptions where the NCA just did what they thought the public wanted, but they are rare.
 
OTOH those that serve the NCA quickly find out what the NCA wants to hear. Those that want to get promoted ensure that their actions conform to the "desired" NCA solution. This process is a "political" process inside the government that is similar to politics inside businesses. Choosing not to please the boss because you disagree with him isn't an easy choice and unfortunately not often made. Sometimes not sending "unwanted" data upstream is justified by the assertion that it won't do any good. Of course, if you didn't know the three star pretty well, you couldn't calibrate whether he was just trying to avoid a "black mark", agreed but really didn't believe it would help, or disagreed and needed a plausible excuse to shoot it down :-).

Your point about the fact that it is imperative that the "political" side of the strategy succeed is probably by far the most important comment in all of this.  Too often it doesn't turn out the way the political side wanted. Too often the political side in office won't listen to those with differing opinions. Human nature makes tough decisions even tougher.

Agree, especially with the last two. I have been involved in that at several different levels, and it is often quite discouraging. For some reason saying "I told you so" doesn't feel too good 10 years later, especially when the "mistake" will simply be buried, not acknowledged. However, the "political" side I was concerned about in this particular case is attempting to ensure your strategy will not fail because after a certain point the public simply won't let you do it. It may be necessary to ensure they are continuously well-informed. That often isn't easy to do.

[Goose]

Biden can't unilaterally donate F16s to Ukraine. He has to use budgeted funds to do so. If he had used those funds back in 2022 to send F16s as you wished he had, Ukraine would be in much worse shape today with regards to artillery shells and air defense. F16s cost several hundred million dollars.

You might want to take a look at https://www.dsca.mil/programs/excess-def...ticles-eda. All Biden had to do back in 2022 was "justify the transfer to Congress". It doesn't require an appropriation. Zero. Nada. We do this all the time with "big ticket" items like ships. Obviously Ukraine would have to figure out a way to get them to Ukraine. That might be easy if they were already in Europe ("as is, where is"). Today of course he would have no chance as Congress would at least consider a resolution telling him not to do it. As I understand it, Congress doesn't have to take any action to approve such grants. They can take action to stop them. Back in 2022, and probably early 2023, he could have done it. IMO the administration still believes this is "too risky" and that Russia might "overreact". That stopped them from even considering such a transfer.

On the subject of Abrams, the US position from early on was that it would not be the best use of limited funds to send lots of them. Ukraine loudly kept demanding them, probably for their own domestic political reasons more than battlefield considerations, as a handful of Abrams won't/wouldn't make a large difference on the battlefield, but every new Western weapon supplied is loudly touted and celebrated in Ukraine. The Abrams of course counted against the appropriated funds just like an F16 would.

See above. Abrams that are EDA do NOT count against appropriated funds. However, all the support and training would. It seems probable to me that the US indeed did not think that such a transfer was the best use of funds. It would be a distraction from other important tasks the Ukraine needed to perform. The US military didn't think the reward justified the price. Yet it eventually happened. I assume you believe the administration caved to Ukrainian politically motivated requests. That looks pretty plausible to me. However, the US only did it after other NATO countries did so. This eliminated any residual "anxiety" about the Russian response. IMO that played into the decision as well.

OK, so you say Biden should use some creative accounting to still somehow send F16s. Maybe he could do that, but he'd definitely be impeached for it. So here again we have domestic politics circumscribing the possible.

True today. Not true in 2022. It also isn't "creative accounting". It is done all the time. Otherwise, DLA has to let a contract to chop them up. That does cost money :-). Preparing an aircraft to go to Davis-Montham is even more expensive. Take a look at
https://www.airplaneboneyards.com/davis-...neyard.htm

[Goose]

Biden can't unilaterally donate F16s to Ukraine. He has to use budgeted funds to do so. If he had used those funds back in 2022 to send F16s as you wished he had, Ukraine would be in much worse shape today with regards to artillery shells and air defense. F16s cost several hundred million dollars.

You might want to take a look at https://www.dsca.mil/programs/excess-def...ticles-eda. All Biden had to do back in 2022 was "justify the transfer to Congress". It doesn't require an appropriation. Zero. Nada. We do this all the time with "big ticket" items like ships. Obviously Ukraine would have to figure out a way to get them to Ukraine. That might be easy if they were already in Europe ("as is, where is"). Today of course he would have no chance as Congress would at least consider a resolution telling him not to do it. As I understand it, Congress doesn't have to take any action to approve such grants. They can take action to stop them. Back in 2022, and probably early 2023, he could have done it. IMO the administration still believes this is "too risky" and that Russia might "overreact". That stopped them from even considering such a transfer.

On the subject of Abrams, the US position from early on was that it would not be the best use of limited funds to send lots of them. Ukraine loudly kept demanding them, probably for their own domestic political reasons more than battlefield considerations, as a handful of Abrams won't/wouldn't make a large difference on the battlefield, but every new Western weapon supplied is loudly touted and celebrated in Ukraine. The Abrams of course counted against the appropriated funds just like an F16 would.

See above. Abrams that are EDA do NOT count against appropriated funds. However, all the support and training would. It seems probable to me that the US indeed did not think that such a transfer was the best use of funds. It would be a distraction from other important tasks the Ukraine needed to perform. The US military didn't think the reward justified the price. Yet it eventually happened. I assume you believe the administration caved to Ukrainian politically motivated requests. That looks pretty plausible to me. However, the US only did it after other NATO countries did so. This eliminated any residual "anxiety" about the Russian response. IMO that played into the decision as well.

OK, so you say Biden should use some creative accounting to still somehow send F16s. Maybe he could do that, but he'd definitely be impeached for it. So here again we have domestic politics circumscribing the possible.

True today. Not true in 2022. It also isn't "creative accounting". It is done all the time. Otherwise, DLA has to let a contract to chop them up. That does cost money :-). Preparing an aircraft to go to Davis-Montham is even more expensive. Take a look at
https://www.airplaneboneyards.com/davis-...neyard.htm

[dabigv13]

The Abrams that were sent were not EDA I don't think, they were/are being remanufactured in US before being sent to Ukraine, which would seem to be against the statute you linked to.

I guess if it was so simple let me turn it around and ask why would F16s be different from all the other stuff we are sending? Why isn't Biden declaring all the Patriots and Sea Sparrows and Strykers and Bradleys etc EDA? I'm not sure what you're asking for is in Biden's power alone, I think he needs Congress and I don't think Congress at any time during the conflict would have authorized Biden to donate squadrons of F16s to Ukraine.

The US is training pilots and has authorized their transfer from European allies. I think the reason we aren't sending them ourselves is primarily because the administration is prioritizing appropriated aid for more important things.

At the moment it seems there won't be any more Ukraine aid until possibly 2025 if the House won't consider the bill that the Senate seems prepared to pass, so probably wise of the administration not to spend on F16s instead of artillery and air defense missiles or Ukraine may not even have an intact air defense system at this time and would be even more overmatched in artillery than they are now.

[dabigv13]

The Abrams that were sent were not EDA I don't think, they were/are being remanufactured in US before being sent to Ukraine, which would seem to be against the statute you linked to.

I guess if it was so simple let me turn it around and ask why would F16s be different from all the other stuff we are sending? Why isn't Biden declaring all the Patriots and Sea Sparrows and Strykers and Bradleys etc EDA? I'm not sure what you're asking for is in Biden's power alone, I think he needs Congress and I don't think Congress at any time during the conflict would have authorized Biden to donate squadrons of F16s to Ukraine.

The US is training pilots and has authorized their transfer from European allies. I think the reason we aren't sending them ourselves is primarily because the administration is prioritizing appropriated aid for more important things.

At the moment it seems there won't be any more Ukraine aid until possibly 2025 if the House won't consider the bill that the Senate seems prepared to pass, so probably wise of the administration not to spend on F16s instead of artillery and air defense missiles or Ukraine may not even have an intact air defense system at this time and would be even more overmatched in artillery than they are now.

[CompSci87]

On the rule against politics: My understanding is that it's meant to prevent the kind of acrimonious partisan political wrangling (Democrats vs. Republicans, American left vs. American right, etc.) that makes enemies out of people who would otherwise happily discuss Stanford sports together. The other mods may or may not see it more strictly, and I don't have any more authority than anyone else. With that caveat about how little my opinion means, personally I don't see any problem with the polite discussion that's been happening lately. It does tread more closely to dangerous ground that where this thread has been before, obviously.

[CompSci87]

On the rule against politics: My understanding is that it's meant to prevent the kind of acrimonious partisan political wrangling (Democrats vs. Republicans, American left vs. American right, etc.) that makes enemies out of people who would otherwise happily discuss Stanford sports together. The other mods may or may not see it more strictly, and I don't have any more authority than anyone else. With that caveat about how little my opinion means, personally I don't see any problem with the polite discussion that's been happening lately. It does tread more closely to dangerous ground that where this thread has been before, obviously.

[Goose]

The Abrams that were sent were not EDA I don't think, they were/are being remanufactured in US before being sent to Ukraine, which would seem to be against the statute you linked to.

You are correct. They were not EDA for exactly the reasons you state and the additional reason they had not been declared "excess". However, they could have been if the administration had decided to send M1A1s that had not been "upgraded". Those were available. The administration decided not to do that because if these tanks were not serviceable in Ukraine it would have been a wasted effort. It appears the administration thought that at the time these was enough money to do it at least "second class". Originally they were going to send M1A2s, but to do that was later deemed to take too long. Instead they sent refurbished M1A1s. The USMC had just recently "returned" a bunch of MAA1s to the Army that were fully mission capable. They could have been declared "excess" and sent if necessary. It wasn't considered necessary.

I guess if it was so simple let me turn it around and ask why would F16s be different from all the other stuff we are sending? Why isn't Biden declaring all the Patriots and Sea Sparrows and Strykers and Bradleys etc EDA?

The answer to this is IMO pretty obvious. The Patriots, Sea Sparrow and Strykers are currently in active inventory and are in no way "excess" to requirements. In fact, we are manufacturing all of these things right now to current requirements. Patriot and Sea Sparrow missiles are in demand. Stryker is arguably kind of a dud, but we still need all we have. Bradleys are also currently in operational use. However, we aren't buying more of them. We probably do have quite a few that could be declared "excess", but those are not guaranteed to "work". The Bradley is not being "phased out". The Stryker is not capable of performing all the Bradley missions.

The F-16 is OTOH being phased out of USAF service. It is being replaced by F-35As. It will be some time before all F-16s are "gone". Some of them are being converted to QF-16 "orange tails" (we are flat out of QF-4s).  However, most of the ones being replaced have no place to go except the boneyard. Many of the ones being replaced are the "latest and greatest" rev, but many more are older revs. They are all coming from operational units so the aircraft are in most cases still "ready to go". They are clearly "excess", as are the ones coming from the EU nations. For example, Norway has replaced ALL their F-16s with F-35s. As Norway did, the USAF would have no problem declaring these F-16s "excess". They in fact are.

I'm not sure what you're asking for is in Biden's power alone, I think he needs Congress and I don't think Congress at any time during the conflict would have authorized Biden to donate squadrons of F16s to Ukraine.

Biden (at least in theory) can't quite do it alone. The USAF has to declare the material "excess" and/or transfer it to the DLA for disposal. Obviously if the president "asked nicely" the USAF would make that happen. He then must NOTIFY Congress of his intention to transfer the EDA to Ukraine in the fiscal year in which the transfer will occur. As I understand it, Congress doesn't need to do anything. If they are OK with it, it just happens. Congress may of course pass legislation forbidding the transfer. However, that legislation can be vetoed. In the past, nothing like that has happened AFAIK. The Congress and the Executive have always "worked it out". Back in late 2022/early 2023 I think Congress would have assented. Today is a different story however. We simply just disagree on this issue.

The US is training pilots and has authorized their transfer from European allies. I think the reason we aren't sending them ourselves is primarily because the administration is prioritizing appropriated aid for more important things.

I assume you mean the State Department has authorized the transfer of US made "defense articles" (F-16s) from other NATO nations to Ukraine. I think the pilots don't require such authorization. They are free agents and not under ITAR control :-). I disagree with your analysis regarding us not sending our own excess inventory to Ukraine. IMO it is because the administration feels that would be a "provocation" and also because the EU nations are providing enough airframes that it isn't necessary (yet). It would be nuts for us to send obsolete jets to Ukraine at full market value. Not to say we wouldn't do it, but I am sure when we give older vessels to say the Philippines we don't count it at "book value". These vessels are already written off to zero.

At the moment it seems there won't be any more Ukraine aid until possibly 2025 if the House won't consider the bill that the Senate seems prepared to pass, so probably wise of the administration not to spend on F16s instead of artillery and air defense missiles or Ukraine may not even have an intact air defense system at this time and would be even more overmatched in artillery than they are now.

I agree the current situation is dire. As I said above, sending F-16s at book value would be insane. I do agree that sending all the 155mm we can lay our hands on is the most important near-term goal. My concern is that if there is no more military aid until 2025, it will be a moot point. I think we share that concern.

[Goose]

The Abrams that were sent were not EDA I don't think, they were/are being remanufactured in US before being sent to Ukraine, which would seem to be against the statute you linked to.

You are correct. They were not EDA for exactly the reasons you state and the additional reason they had not been declared "excess". However, they could have been if the administration had decided to send M1A1s that had not been "upgraded". Those were available. The administration decided not to do that because if these tanks were not serviceable in Ukraine it would have been a wasted effort. It appears the administration thought that at the time these was enough money to do it at least "second class". Originally they were going to send M1A2s, but to do that was later deemed to take too long. Instead they sent refurbished M1A1s. The USMC had just recently "returned" a bunch of MAA1s to the Army that were fully mission capable. They could have been declared "excess" and sent if necessary. It wasn't considered necessary.

I guess if it was so simple let me turn it around and ask why would F16s be different from all the other stuff we are sending? Why isn't Biden declaring all the Patriots and Sea Sparrows and Strykers and Bradleys etc EDA?

The answer to this is IMO pretty obvious. The Patriots, Sea Sparrow and Strykers are currently in active inventory and are in no way "excess" to requirements. In fact, we are manufacturing all of these things right now to current requirements. Patriot and Sea Sparrow missiles are in demand. Stryker is arguably kind of a dud, but we still need all we have. Bradleys are also currently in operational use. However, we aren't buying more of them. We probably do have quite a few that could be declared "excess", but those are not guaranteed to "work". The Bradley is not being "phased out". The Stryker is not capable of performing all the Bradley missions.

The F-16 is OTOH being phased out of USAF service. It is being replaced by F-35As. It will be some time before all F-16s are "gone". Some of them are being converted to QF-16 "orange tails" (we are flat out of QF-4s).  However, most of the ones being replaced have no place to go except the boneyard. Many of the ones being replaced are the "latest and greatest" rev, but many more are older revs. They are all coming from operational units so the aircraft are in most cases still "ready to go". They are clearly "excess", as are the ones coming from the EU nations. For example, Norway has replaced ALL their F-16s with F-35s. As Norway did, the USAF would have no problem declaring these F-16s "excess". They in fact are.

I'm not sure what you're asking for is in Biden's power alone, I think he needs Congress and I don't think Congress at any time during the conflict would have authorized Biden to donate squadrons of F16s to Ukraine.

Biden (at least in theory) can't quite do it alone. The USAF has to declare the material "excess" and/or transfer it to the DLA for disposal. Obviously if the president "asked nicely" the USAF would make that happen. He then must NOTIFY Congress of his intention to transfer the EDA to Ukraine in the fiscal year in which the transfer will occur. As I understand it, Congress doesn't need to do anything. If they are OK with it, it just happens. Congress may of course pass legislation forbidding the transfer. However, that legislation can be vetoed. In the past, nothing like that has happened AFAIK. The Congress and the Executive have always "worked it out". Back in late 2022/early 2023 I think Congress would have assented. Today is a different story however. We simply just disagree on this issue.

The US is training pilots and has authorized their transfer from European allies. I think the reason we aren't sending them ourselves is primarily because the administration is prioritizing appropriated aid for more important things.

I assume you mean the State Department has authorized the transfer of US made "defense articles" (F-16s) from other NATO nations to Ukraine. I think the pilots don't require such authorization. They are free agents and not under ITAR control :-). I disagree with your analysis regarding us not sending our own excess inventory to Ukraine. IMO it is because the administration feels that would be a "provocation" and also because the EU nations are providing enough airframes that it isn't necessary (yet). It would be nuts for us to send obsolete jets to Ukraine at full market value. Not to say we wouldn't do it, but I am sure when we give older vessels to say the Philippines we don't count it at "book value". These vessels are already written off to zero.

At the moment it seems there won't be any more Ukraine aid until possibly 2025 if the House won't consider the bill that the Senate seems prepared to pass, so probably wise of the administration not to spend on F16s instead of artillery and air defense missiles or Ukraine may not even have an intact air defense system at this time and would be even more overmatched in artillery than they are now.

I agree the current situation is dire. As I said above, sending F-16s at book value would be insane. I do agree that sending all the 155mm we can lay our hands on is the most important near-term goal. My concern is that if there is no more military aid until 2025, it will be a moot point. I think we share that concern.

[81alum]

I agree the current situation is dire.... My concern is that if there is no more military aid until 2025, it will be a moot point. I think we share that concern.

Agreed.  Thankfully, the Senate managed to come up with a bi-partisan deal in the wee hours of the morning, after an all night session, 70-29.  Whether it can even get a vote in the House is uncertain.  The term "discharge petition" may become a new part of the national lexicon.

[81alum]

I agree the current situation is dire.... My concern is that if there is no more military aid until 2025, it will be a moot point. I think we share that concern.

Agreed.  Thankfully, the Senate managed to come up with a bi-partisan deal in the wee hours of the morning, after an all night session, 70-29.  Whether it can even get a vote in the House is uncertain.  The term "discharge petition" may become a new part of the national lexicon.

[TrumpCard]

A discharge petition is a threat, not a viable strategy to give timely aid to Israel or Ukraine. If the Democrats were to file a petition now, it’d be June before the legislation passed.

[TrumpCard]

A discharge petition is a threat, not a viable strategy to give timely aid to Israel or Ukraine. If the Democrats were to file a petition now, it’d be June before the legislation passed.

[Goose]

A discharge petition is a threat, not a viable strategy to give timely aid to Israel or Ukraine. If the Democrats were to file a petition now, it’d be June before the legislation passed.

I agree it is not a viable strategy to deliver aid to Israel and Ukraine in the near-term. However I would file the petition now, just in case that turns out to be "the best we can do". My concern is much greater for Ukraine than for Israel. Ukraine is orders of magnitude closer to "losing" its war than Israel is. Israel isn't "going away" anytime soon, US aid or not. Ukraine may be. For them, delay is a much greater factor.

[Goose]

A discharge petition is a threat, not a viable strategy to give timely aid to Israel or Ukraine. If the Democrats were to file a petition now, it’d be June before the legislation passed.

I agree it is not a viable strategy to deliver aid to Israel and Ukraine in the near-term. However I would file the petition now, just in case that turns out to be "the best we can do". My concern is much greater for Ukraine than for Israel. Ukraine is orders of magnitude closer to "losing" its war than Israel is. Israel isn't "going away" anytime soon, US aid or not. Ukraine may be. For them, delay is a much greater factor.

[TrumpCard]

Sure, why not?  More credible threats are more likely to produce action, so actually filing the discharge petition is more likely to result in passage of an aid package both in the near term and in the medium term. But I hope and expect that waiting for the medium term won’t be necessary. Delaying this aid would be monumentally dumb.

[TrumpCard]

Sure, why not?  More credible threats are more likely to produce action, so actually filing the discharge petition is more likely to result in passage of an aid package both in the near term and in the medium term. But I hope and expect that waiting for the medium term won’t be necessary. Delaying this aid would be monumentally dumb.

[Mick]

I agree the current situation is dire.... My concern is that if there is no more military aid until 2025, it will be a moot point. I think we share that concern.

Agreed.  Thankfully, the Senate managed to come up with a bi-partisan deal in the wee hours of the morning, after an all night session, 70-29.  Whether it can even get a vote in the House is uncertain.  The term "discharge petition" may become a new part of the national lexicon.

Bipartisan support in Senate, uphill battle to pass in the House. Speaker has criticized it for lacking certain provisions, says it's unlikely to get a vote in its current form.

[Mick]

I agree the current situation is dire.... My concern is that if there is no more military aid until 2025, it will be a moot point. I think we share that concern.

Agreed.  Thankfully, the Senate managed to come up with a bi-partisan deal in the wee hours of the morning, after an all night session, 70-29.  Whether it can even get a vote in the House is uncertain.  The term "discharge petition" may become a new part of the national lexicon.

Bipartisan support in Senate, uphill battle to pass in the House. Speaker has criticized it for lacking certain provisions, says it's unlikely to get a vote in its current form.

[81alum]

A discharge petition is a threat, not a viable strategy to give timely aid to Israel or Ukraine. If the Democrats were to file a petition now, it’d be June before the legislation passed.

And that is assuming, of course, that they can get half a dozen Republicans to sign the petition, which is not a foregone conclusion.

The ball is in Mike Johnson's court, for now.

[81alum]

A discharge petition is a threat, not a viable strategy to give timely aid to Israel or Ukraine. If the Democrats were to file a petition now, it’d be June before the legislation passed.

And that is assuming, of course, that they can get half a dozen Republicans to sign the petition, which is not a foregone conclusion.

The ball is in Mike Johnson's court, for now.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-danish...06837.html

Going to be a nice factory when it is complete, in a year from now. It will produce 200,000 shells a year. In September, Ukraine was firing 6,000 shells a day (and Russia was firing more). That would mean this factories production would last about a month and a half. Scholz says Germany will spend 2% of GDP on the German military next fiscal year (finally). Of course, that assumes it is politically possible, which it may not be. This article also states that the 1e6 artillery shells the EU countries promised to manufacture for Ukraine fell short to the tune of only 1/3 of that being made. That isn't round-off error.

It must be pointed out that NATO does not plan to be as reliant on artillery as both Ukraine and Russia are in this war. NATO intends to use tac air for most of the functions that Ukraine performs with artillery.  However, German tac air is currently neither modern nor large. Things may be "rotten in Denmark" but they are arguably putrescent in Germany.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/german-danish...06837.html

Going to be a nice factory when it is complete, in a year from now. It will produce 200,000 shells a year. In September, Ukraine was firing 6,000 shells a day (and Russia was firing more). That would mean this factories production would last about a month and a half. Scholz says Germany will spend 2% of GDP on the German military next fiscal year (finally). Of course, that assumes it is politically possible, which it may not be. This article also states that the 1e6 artillery shells the EU countries promised to manufacture for Ukraine fell short to the tune of only 1/3 of that being made. That isn't round-off error.

It must be pointed out that NATO does not plan to be as reliant on artillery as both Ukraine and Russia are in this war. NATO intends to use tac air for most of the functions that Ukraine performs with artillery.  However, German tac air is currently neither modern nor large. Things may be "rotten in Denmark" but they are arguably putrescent in Germany.

[TrumpCard]

A discharge petition is a threat, not a viable strategy to give timely aid to Israel or Ukraine. If the Democrats were to file a petition now, it’d be June before the legislation passed.

And that is assuming, of course, that they can get half a dozen Republicans to sign the petition, which is not a foregone conclusion.

The ball is in Mike Johnson's court, for now.

Now only 4 GOP votes needed (absent defections by Democrats).  I'll forego predictions in the interest of keeping the peace on this board.

[TrumpCard]

A discharge petition is a threat, not a viable strategy to give timely aid to Israel or Ukraine. If the Democrats were to file a petition now, it’d be June before the legislation passed.

And that is assuming, of course, that they can get half a dozen Republicans to sign the petition, which is not a foregone conclusion.

The ball is in Mike Johnson's court, for now.

Now only 4 GOP votes needed (absent defections by Democrats).  I'll forego predictions in the interest of keeping the peace on this board.

[81alum]

Now only 4 GOP votes needed (absent defections by Democrats).  I'll forego predictions in the interest of keeping the peace on this board.

Right.  Tonight's results in the NY3 narrow the gap, but what may be more important than the shift of one seat is whether the results of this special election influences the behavior of the 17 remaining Republicans in Biden districts.

[81alum]

Now only 4 GOP votes needed (absent defections by Democrats).  I'll forego predictions in the interest of keeping the peace on this board.

Right.  Tonight's results in the NY3 narrow the gap, but what may be more important than the shift of one seat is whether the results of this special election influences the behavior of the 17 remaining Republicans in Biden districts.

[GK3]

A discharge petition is a threat, not a viable strategy to give timely aid to Israel or Ukraine. If the Democrats were to file a petition now, it’d be June before the legislation passed.

I agree it is not a viable strategy to deliver aid to Israel and Ukraine in the near-term. However I would file the petition now, just in case that turns out to be "the best we can do". My concern is much greater for Ukraine than for Israel. Ukraine is orders of magnitude closer to "losing" its war than Israel is. Israel isn't "going away" anytime soon, US aid or not. Ukraine may be. For them, delay is a much greater factor.

Could not agree more.  The exigency of the situation in the Ukraine seems such that we should focus our support there and not into the Middle East. I do not think we have any chance of "do overs" if we don't act now and with alacrity. Too often the powers that be forget or never knew what it was like to be the guy at the tip of the spear.  Ask the heads of the Baltic States what they think?

---

Now only 4 GOP votes needed (absent defections by Democrats).  I'll forego predictions in the interest of keeping the peace on this board.

Right.  Tonight's results in the NY3 narrow the gap, but what may be more important than the shift of one seat is whether the results of this special election influences the behavior of the 17 remaining Republicans in Biden districts.

+1 enough said

[GK3]

A discharge petition is a threat, not a viable strategy to give timely aid to Israel or Ukraine. If the Democrats were to file a petition now, it’d be June before the legislation passed.

I agree it is not a viable strategy to deliver aid to Israel and Ukraine in the near-term. However I would file the petition now, just in case that turns out to be "the best we can do". My concern is much greater for Ukraine than for Israel. Ukraine is orders of magnitude closer to "losing" its war than Israel is. Israel isn't "going away" anytime soon, US aid or not. Ukraine may be. For them, delay is a much greater factor.

Could not agree more.  The exigency of the situation in the Ukraine seems such that we should focus our support there and not into the Middle East. I do not think we have any chance of "do overs" if we don't act now and with alacrity. Too often the powers that be forget or never knew what it was like to be the guy at the tip of the spear.  Ask the heads of the Baltic States what they think?

---

Now only 4 GOP votes needed (absent defections by Democrats).  I'll forego predictions in the interest of keeping the peace on this board.

Right.  Tonight's results in the NY3 narrow the gap, but what may be more important than the shift of one seat is whether the results of this special election influences the behavior of the 17 remaining Republicans in Biden districts.

+1 enough said

[TrumpCard]

Could not agree more.  The exigency of the situation in the Ukraine seems such that we should focus our support there and not into the Middle East. 

Aid to Israel has a lot more support in Congress than aid to Ukraine has.  The Democrats are trying to avoid separate votes on those two aid packages because Israel aid would pass quickly and Ukraine would get bogged down longer than it would if the two packages were bundled.  I won't get into the relative merits of the two aid packages.  You're on record with your position on Israel, as am I.  This response is limited to your point that combining aid to Israel/Ukraine would slow passage of aid to Ukraine specifically to avoid going down a rabbit hole.

[TrumpCard]

Could not agree more.  The exigency of the situation in the Ukraine seems such that we should focus our support there and not into the Middle East. 

Aid to Israel has a lot more support in Congress than aid to Ukraine has.  The Democrats are trying to avoid separate votes on those two aid packages because Israel aid would pass quickly and Ukraine would get bogged down longer than it would if the two packages were bundled.  I won't get into the relative merits of the two aid packages.  You're on record with your position on Israel, as am I.  This response is limited to your point that combining aid to Israel/Ukraine would slow passage of aid to Ukraine specifically to avoid going down a rabbit hole.

[dabigv13]

Ukraine sinks another Russian ship with unmanned surface vessels. Will make resupplying Crimea by ocean more difficult and further reduce any amphibious capability the Black Sea Fleet may have once had.

https://www.twz.com/sea/ukrainian-drone-...nding-ship

[dabigv13]

Ukraine sinks another Russian ship with unmanned surface vessels. Will make resupplying Crimea by ocean more difficult and further reduce any amphibious capability the Black Sea Fleet may have once had.

https://www.twz.com/sea/ukrainian-drone-...nding-ship

[Goose]

Ukraine sinks another Russian ship with unmanned surface vessels. Will make resupplying Crimea by ocean more difficult and further reduce any amphibious capability the Black Sea Fleet may have once had.

https://www.twz.com/sea/ukrainian-drone-...nding-ship

Exactly the case! This is another step in the  "plan" to isolate Crimea. FWIW Ukraine has "guaranteed" that they will put the Kerch bridge in the water in 2024. Obviously no way to know how real that statement is, but if it happens the lack of ability to make up the supply shortfall will be even bigger.

[Goose]

Ukraine sinks another Russian ship with unmanned surface vessels. Will make resupplying Crimea by ocean more difficult and further reduce any amphibious capability the Black Sea Fleet may have once had.

https://www.twz.com/sea/ukrainian-drone-...nding-ship

Exactly the case! This is another step in the  "plan" to isolate Crimea. FWIW Ukraine has "guaranteed" that they will put the Kerch bridge in the water in 2024. Obviously no way to know how real that statement is, but if it happens the lack of ability to make up the supply shortfall will be even bigger.

[dabigv13]

The newly developed "Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs", or GLSDBs, have made their combat debut. 

Approximately twice the range as GMLRS, ~90 miles, but able to be launched from the same HIMARS or M270 platform, or even something kludged together. As the article points out, the component pieces are found all over NATO stockpiles, so theoretically Europe could pay for/supply these if US aid remains a problem. 

https://www.twz.com/news-features/ground...in-ukraine

[dabigv13]

The newly developed "Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs", or GLSDBs, have made their combat debut. 

Approximately twice the range as GMLRS, ~90 miles, but able to be launched from the same HIMARS or M270 platform, or even something kludged together. As the article points out, the component pieces are found all over NATO stockpiles, so theoretically Europe could pay for/supply these if US aid remains a problem. 

https://www.twz.com/news-features/ground...in-ukraine