Tag: Ukraine

  • Ukraine Agrees To Ceasefire

    Ukraine Agrees To Ceasefire

    It has just been announced that Ukrainian leadership has agreed to a 30 day ceasefire in the ongoing Russian invasion. The agreement was reached during talks between the US and Ukraine in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The Ukrainian acceptance is dependent on Russian acceptance of the ceasefire terms.

    It has been a bit more than three years since Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked.

    As part of the ceasefire agreement, the US will restart intelligence sharing and weapons shipments to Ukraine. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz announced weapons shipments would restart immediately.

    It also includes a ‘minerals deal’.

    Keep in mind, this ceasefire is completely dependent on the concurrence of the aggressor, Russia. Whether or not Putin will accept this deal is unclear. Based on nearly all of his past comments and writings – and those of his proxies – it is very unlikely that he will accept the terms of this ceasefire.

  • Ukraine War Update

    Ukraine War Update

    1000 days. That’s how long the three day Special Military Operation in Ukraine has been going on. That’s 142.8 weeks or 38.8 months or 2.75 years. I know I gave a bit of an update a few days ago, but there has been a significant development that needs to be discussed.

    The Biden-Harris administration finally made the decision to allow Ukraine to use ATACMS and other Western-built long range strike munitions, namely Scalp EG/Storm Shadow, inside of Russia proper. Frankly, this was overdue, by a year or more. The proximate cause was the use of North Korean troops by the Kremlin, or at least that is what is being said.

    Media reports indicate that the UAF fired six of the 190 mile range ballistic missiles at a target near Bryansk. The 67th GRAU Arsenal, a critical ammunition storage facility was hit. Unfortunately, Twitter is still not embedding properly, so you’ll have to click thru to see the videos.

    https://twitter.com/ukraine_map/status/1858703076472881164

    The Russian MOD is claiming they shot down 5 of the 6 and the damage was caused by debris from the intercepts. This claim is laughable on its face. The Russians have trouble shooting down any ballistic missiles with the air defense systems they are using. Based on the video and images I’ve seen, there were several impacts and much of the storage is just gone. Locals report hearing several missiles and specifically say they were not drones. We’ll have to wait for satellite images to be sure of the type and extent of the damage though.

    I want to be very clear about something, the Ukrainian use of these missiles is not going to start WWIII, it is not going to cause Russia to use nukes and it is not going to widen the war in any way. You know how I know this? Putin is neither crazy nor suicidal. He’s gotten the escalation management mid-wits at State to brown their trousers every other time he rattled the nuclear saber, why not do it again. Here’s a list of Putin’s ‘red lines’ and the reaction to them being crossed:

    As you can see, none of the ‘red lines’ crossed so far have led to anything other than the Russians targeting more civilian targets. This one will be no different.

    For those of you who will point out the facts that Putin signed new legislation about the doctrinal use of nuclear weapons and what is and what isn’t considered an act of war, he signed the same documents back on 25 September. Same language, same saber-rattling tone. Given the state of the Russian economy – a kilo of potatoes is up by 70% beets by 60%, bread 40% and overall inflation is north of 8% since the beginning of the year – I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he actually signed the same documents.

  • World News Roundup

    World News Roundup

    It’s week 142 (two years, eight months and three weeks) of Putin’s 3 days to Kiev invasion of Ukraine. For all of the 700,000 casualties*, 3558 tanks, 1744 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, 4986 Armored Fighting Vehicles, ~1000 APCs/Engineering Vehicles/Command Post Vehicles, 1282 Artillery pieces, 477 MLRS, and sundry Hundreds of other vehicles and equipment, the Russians only control about 5% of Ukraine. Hell, they don’t even control all of the Oblasts they ‘annexed’ last year, in fact they control less of Kherson Oblast than they did when the sham referendum was held.

    It’s gotten so bad for Putin the Russian army is using North Korean troops as cannon fodder in Kursk Oblast to try to stem a Ukrainian incursion into that part of Russia. Around two brigades of North Korean troops were sent to far eastern Russia for training and equipping about 6 weeks ago. The first Nork casualties were reported last week, and several have reportedly defected to Ukraine.

    I feel I should mention that if, and as of right now it’s a big IF, any of these NK troops get back to NK, they are headed directly to a camp for the rest of their miserable lives. Why? because they’ve seen how the rest of the world lives. The information control in North Korea is complete. If the State does not want you to know something, you do not know it. The 10,000 or so Norks in Russia however. . . What’s the saying about genies and bottles?

    The Norks have also sent around 100 self-propelled artillery pieces for the Russians to use. The issue with the Nork arty is that it’s a different caliber, 170mm, than anything the Russian tubes use. It also takes forever and ten minutes to emplace, aim, fire, and unemplace. In other words, it is highly susceptible to counter-battery fire and drone strikes. In other, simpler words, nearly useless in the current Ukraine battlefield.

    Speaking of Kursk Oblast, the UAF have taken several thousand square kilometers of territory, including the Gazprom natural gas pumping facilities at Sudzha. The Russians and their NK allies have tried very hard to take that territory back in the past few days/week. While they have managed to regain some land, the majority of the attacks have been defeated. A total of 500 vehicles and several thousand men were lost on 3 consecutive days in meat wave attacks.

    Frankly, I’m still of my old Cold War mindset that the only good Russian is a dead Russian, and wish the Ukrainians all the luck in the world. I am also of the mindset that as long as there are no US boots on the ground there, we should be helping them as much as possible. This is an existential threat to a country we are treaty-bound to aid in the case of an invasion. I realize that some of you hold differing ideas about the war in Ukraine, and that’s your prerogative. We can disagree and still be friends.

    *The 700,000 casualty number is on the low side of the estimated range. I have seen numbers as high as 1.2 mm and as low as 650,000. It includes what the Russians call gruz 200 (cargo 200 or deceased soldiers), severely wounded and sick troops who are unable to return to the front. Since WWII, the accepted ratio of KIA to WIA is about 1-4. The appalling lack of battlefield triage and care on the Russian side puts that number closer to 2-3. The US had a ratio of about 1-10.7 during the GWOT for reference. This casualty rate has, of late, exceeded the replacement rate, that is there are more Russian casualties occuring in Ukraine than births across Russia. That is a demographic disaster in the making.

    Israel is still absolutely curbstomping both Hamas and Hezbollah. Every time either appoints new leadership, Israel plays a game of Whack- Fuck with them. Of late, the IDF has been taking out Hezb figure who were involved in the Beirut Barracks bombing. Good on them. . .

    Since my last piece about that particular shit sandwich, we’ve found out that one of the targets Israel hit in Iran was a clandestine nuclear weapons facility. It seems the facility in question was some sort of assembly area and it is now all but completely destroyed.

    We also found out that the Israelis managed to take out all of Iran’s relatively modern air defense systems. I say relatively, because the bulk of the Iranian ADA was Russian built S-300 system. Prior to the Israeli/Hamas conflict, Iran has four of those systems, now, well, they have exactly zero.

    The CCP has been flexing a bit in the Pacific. In the weeks leading up to the US elections, they repeatedly violated the Taiwanese ADIZ and circled the island with their navy and coast guard. Meanwhile, the US just approved $567m in new military aid for the Taiwanese.

    They also attacked a Philippine naval vessel trying to resupply the Philippine ship/base at Second Thomas shoal. Second Thomas is part of the Spratly chain and inside of the Philippines exclusive economic zone. The Chinese claim it as theirs based on the name of the body of water, the South China Sea, and not much more. I’m sure most of you have seen the 9 dash map.

    The entire claim is ridiculous. Under international law, coastal countries have sovereign control out to 12 miles and an exclusive economic zone of up to 200 miles. Under Maritime law, and World Court rulings, none of China’s territorial claims are valid. Sooner or later it’s going to wind up in a shooting match. I just hope we’re ready.

    On the lighter side, the famous deer in Nara park in Japan are in the news. The deer, much accustomed to people, are starting to get aggressive with tourists. The park, a 502-hectare sanctuary designated as a national treasure, is home to around 1,400 free-roaming deer, and some of the city’s most famous landmarks, including Todaiji Temple. Last year there were 5 documented injuries caused by the deer, this year there have already been 35.

    “We do not think the deer are becoming more aggressive towards people, but there has been an increase in incidents,” said Yumiko O’Donnell, of the Nara Prefectural Government’s Tourism Bureau. “More tourists are coming back to Nara Park after the pandemic. So it is possible that after a relatively quiet time, the deer have been surprised to see many more people”. Nature, red in tooth and claw. Even in the Land of the Rising Sun.

    This next, and last, item is a bit um, gross. While trying to get to the bottom of a completely unrelated topic your editor ran into an odd set of facts. One I really wish I hadn’t, but one that explains a lot. Consanguinity, that is inbreeding or cousin marriage is far more common across the Ummah, or Muslim world than it is in any other region. By a lot.

    Pakistan leads the way with 61% of marriages being between first cousins. Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, the Sudans and Afghanistan are all at 50%. Mauritania, Iraq, Iran and Yemen are all in the 40% range, with most of the remainder in the 25-39% range. The numbers fall in the far eastern Muslim states like Indonesia where they have a consanguinity rate of less than 15% and Malaysia with less than 5%.

    For reference, America’s hat, Canada, has a 1.5% consanguinity rate, while the US has a less than 0.1% rate.

    But what does it mean? Consanguinity is linked to a whole host of issues. Children of consanguineous marriages are twice as likely to have genetic disorders than children of non-related couples. These disorders include thalassaemias (a blood disorder), cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, and infantile cerebral palsy. Consanguineous births are also at a higher rate of congenital malformations, such as congenital heart diseases, renal diseases, and rare blood disorders.

    Plus the eeeewwwww factor.

  • Has NATO Enlargement Enhanced National Security?

    Has NATO Enlargement Enhanced National Security?

    https://www.cato.org/commentary/has-nato-enlargement-enhanced-us-national-security

    Has NATO Enlargement Enhanced US National Security?

    The prospective future enlargement of the alliance to Ukraine – a remarkably popular policy option in Washington – is not in the United States’ interest.

    Introduction

    What effect has NATO enlargement had on US national security? Few issues have been as central to US foreign policy over the last three decades. Since the mid 1990s, a bipartisan foreign policy consensus has held that enlarging the alliance was critical to US national security and the only practical manner of consolidating what President Clinton termed a Europe “whole, free, and at peace.” This position is so well-established in the United States’ political culture that several rounds of NATO expansion proceeded without meaningful debate in the US Senate. Indeed, occasional efforts by some policymakers to question the merits of enlargement have been met with accusations of isolationism, or of “working for Vladimir Putin”. By this logic, not only does US national security benefit from an enlarged NATO, but were the United States to stop expanding NATO the sky would be likely to fall.

    In contrast, this paper makes the case that NATO expansion has been a net loss to US national security and ought not to continue. Note that I focus on US national security, not whether enlargement may have benefitted other actors. Drawing on over a decade of archival research into the origins and consequences of enlargement, I advance three specific arguments. First, claims that NATO benefitted US national security by anchoring the alliance, ensuring the stability of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), and promoting democracy are almost certainly overstated. Instead – second – the alliance has generated a host of problems for the United States by encouraging allied cheap riding and reckless driving, limiting US strategic flexibility, and contributing to the collapse of relations with Moscow. As a result, future enlargement to states such as Ukraine is not in the United States’ interest.

    The remainder of this essay proceeds in three sections. First, I review and critically evaluate the purported benefits of NATO enlargement. From there, I discuss the variety of problems enlargement has posed to US national security. In both of these sections, I pay particular attention to the consequences of enlargement itself and to how alternative policy options may have affected US interests. I conclude by briefly reflecting on the future of enlargement at a time when Ukrainian accession in particular dominates policy debates.

    Evaluating the Case for Enlargement

    NATO was created to limit the threat of a potential European hegemon emerging after World War Two. Under postwar conditions, this meant containing possible Soviet ambitions and hedging against the possibility that Germany would (again) recover and seek continental mastery. It was thus not obvious that the alliance would survive – let alone expand – after the Cold War. After all, a European hegemon was not in the cards after the Cold War given the collapse of Soviet power, Russian economic and military weakness, Germany’s inward focus following reunification, and British and French nuclear weapons. Given the United States’ historic reluctance to accept a permanent role in European security, it was more than plausible that Washington might take the Cold War win and close up shop in Europe with its anti-hegemonic interests fulfilled.

    Yet NATO not only survived the Cold War but expanded into the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet space. Over just 25 years, the alliance doubled its membership roster from 16 to 32 states while adding nearly as much territory that the US was obligated to help protect as the original 1949 alliance. Crucially, this was a primarily American project: although many of the states to which NATO expanded wanted into the alliance, most of the existing allies opposed expansion and had to be cajoled and pressured by Washington into accepting enlargement. Meanwhile, keeping NATO’s door open remains central to the alliance’s official policy and a cardinal principle in Washington foreign policy circles. The question becomes: from an American point of view, was this a wise move?

    Proponents of enlargement think so. From this perspective, enlargement provided the United States four benefits. First, an enlarged alliance is said to have given NATO a new purpose after the Cold War and ensured the durability of the postwar “liberal international order.” Second, proponents allege that enlargement helped liberalize post-communist states throughout Central and Eastern Europe, thus ensuring liberal democracy and capitalism flourished throughout the area. Relatedly – third – enlargement may have limited post-Cold War instability and conditions that could produce a wider conflict in CEE born of competition among states in the area and/​or between Germany and Russia for regional influence. Finally, NATO’s post-Cold War expansion is said to have blocked the re-emergence of a Soviet-type hegemon by dissuading and deterring Russian revisionism.

    None of these claims withstand scrutiny.

    Claim 1: Enlargement Kept NATO in Business

    The notion that NATO enlargement was valuable because it kept NATO in business during “a time of peace” (to quote Madeline Albright) puts the cart before the horse. Alliances are not valuable in themselves – they are valuable because of how they serve a state’s interests. To this point, the United States was happy at several points during the Cold War to threaten the future of NATO if its allies did not defer to American concerns independent of what the allies wanted; tellingly, for example, Eisenhower as president threatened an “agonizing reappraisal” of the US commitment to Europe if France did not entertain the possibility of German nuclearization. By the same token, the notion that enlargement helped keep NATO alive and so protected the postwar liberal order elides the fact that, if the liberal order is valuable and other states deeply committed to its tenets, then other actors would have been committed to its preservation and defense. By this claim’s own logic, enlargement would be superfluous.

    Claims 2–3: Enlargement Helped CEE Liberalization and Stopped Instability

    Different problems emerge with claims surrounding NATO’s centrality to Central and Eastern Europe. In terms of liberalization, NATO – as a military alliance – was, is, and remains poorly suited as a liberalism promotion vehicle. To the extent external actors can influence domestic trajectories, it requires constant time and attention. Once a state joins NATO, however, the alliance ceases to have tools for applying this pressure – there is no NATO eviction mechanism, and to threaten abandonment of a single state because of domestic problems is to invite questions over the alliance’s credibility. Indicative of the problem, we have seen meaningful democratic backsliding among NATO members such as Turkey, Poland, and Hungary with few consequences. Furthermore, it is also why scholars who have studied liberalization in Central and Eastern Europe ascribe more of the trend to the European Union – an institution optimized for monitoring and adjusting to members’ behavior – than to NATO as such.

    Conversely, it may be true that enlargement helped dampen some forms of regional instability, in particular by reducing former Soviet clients’ need to arm for self-defense and so limiting the risk of insecurity spirals. Even here, however, it is not obvious that NATO was the only vehicle to solve the problem. After all, multilateral options such as NATO’s Partnership for Peace could have provided similar forms of reassurance, with few of the downsides – discussed below – attendant to formal membership. Meanwhile, it is hard to argue competition between Germany and Russia would have erupted if not for enlargement: with Russia in economic and military malaise throughout the 1990s-2010s and Berlin focused on knitting the former East and West Germany together, there was limited opportunity for regional security competition.

    Claim 4: Enlargement Deterred Russia

    This last point also underscores problems with claims that NATO enlargement helped deter Russian revisionism. At root, with Russia a faint shadow of the USSR, Russian opportunities for aggression for most of the post-Cold War period were limited. Indeed, it was only when an enlarged NATO arrived on Russia’s border that Moscow was able to issue plausible military threats against the alliance. Moreover, it is important to remember that Russia under Boris Yeltsin sought Russian liberalization at home and cooperation abroad; its motivations were anything but hostile. Although the evidence is less certain, Vladimir Putin also seems to have been less revisionist – at least early on – than many see in retrospect. After all, if Putin’s Russia were truly revisionist and held in check only by NATO, then one would have expected Moscow to aggress before NATO expanded to states such as Latvia and Estonia, as well as taken earlier and more consistent action against states such as Ukraine and Georgia than actually occurred. In any case, even if Russia had proven revisionist in a world where NATO enlargement never happened, the presence of former Soviet clients eager to guard their independence suggests it would have been both possible to create a balancing coalition outside NATO auspices and taken a long time before Russia posed the sort of hegemonic threat that might imperil US security. Put simply, NATO expansion was not necessary even if the goal was to block Russian aggrandizement.

    Drawbacks to Enlargement

    In short, enlargement did not produce the positives that proponents posit. Still, the issue goes beyond just the absence of advantages – in fact, enlargement has meaningfully damaged US national security. Several problems stand out.

    The Bleeding Frontier

    First, NATO expansion has tied the United States to a host of states which add little to US security yet leave US policy flexibility hostage to local dynamics with few exit options. Strategically, regardless of whether one believes the United States ought to try to dominate European politics itself or more narrowly block the rise of a European hegemon, it is difficult to argue that states such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Latvia are central to such an effort. In terms of population, economics, military potential, and diplomatic heft, these countries do little to bolster US power and influence in Europe. Politically, their liberalization and commitment to free-market capitalism—though good for those states—is irrelevant to US national security. Even in the context of European liberalism, one should recall that liberalism flourished throughout much of the continent during the Cold War despite the presence of communist autocracies. And while it might be detrimental to US national security should another state dominate Central and Eastern Europe, the likelihood of such a challenger emerging is virtually nil given Russian weakness (clearly demonstrated in its poor showing in the Russia-Ukraine War), regional actors’ desire to protect their own independence, and the presence of capable states in Western Europe.

    By enlarging NATO to these states, however, the United States has been pushed to treat their concerns as central to US interests – enlargement acted as a transmission belt that links allied concerns to US policy. In the 1990s, concerns with regional instability due to the Balkan Wars at a time when NATO was preparing to enlarge helped pull the US into those conflicts. In the 2000s-2010s, concerns from new NATO members and aspirant NATO members that Russia might one day aggress again provided momentum for continued enlargement and moving the alliance further into CEE. Since Russian-Ukrainian tensions spiked after 2014, calls by vulnerable allies such as Latvia and Estonia for protection have compelled the United States to consider a range of costly schemes to defend states whose security is difficult to ensure due to geography. If confrontation with Moscow continues, these demands are likely to increase even as the solutions may grow in cost and escalatory potential. Meanwhile, because US leaders often put a premium on ensuring the credibility of NATO’s security guarantees – in part to keep enlargement itself a credible policy – there are few options for ignoring allied pressure. Had NATO not enlarged, security concerns in Eastern Europe would have had more limited impact on US defense planning and cost.

    Allied Cheap Riding and Reckless Driving

    Second, enlargement has likely encouraged allied cheap-riding and reckless-driving in ways that harm US security. On the one hand, with NATO having gone from 16 to 32 members, it becomes easier for any one country to under-invest in its defenses in hopes that some other state will pick up the slack. Enlargement transformed the alliance from a primarily Western European enterprise to a continent-wide grouping, which only reinforced this problem by limiting the extent to which NATO members share similar threat perceptions; it is not hard to understand why, for example, Spain or Italy might perceive Russia as less threatening than Poland and so prepare for different security missions. With the US as the primary booster of enlargement, however, and having staked much of its foreign policy on the alliance, it often falls to Washington to make up the difference in allied investments and ensure the alliance is strategically viable. Thus, not only has US defense spending been higher than other allies, but the US has been called upon both in peacetime – for instance, to reinforce Eastern Europe following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – and in wartime – for example, during the 2011 Libyan intervention – to compensate for European shortfalls.

    Some of the alliance’s post-Cold War members have also likely engaged in reckless driving due to the extra margin of security provided by NATO membership. The Baltic states, for example, have often taken the lead in challenging Russian foreign policy despite their evident concern with possible Russian aggression. It is difficult to explain these contradictory trends without NATO security guarantees: absent NATO membership, one expects these states to look to their defenses without otherwise risking the very confrontation they fear. Polish policy during the Russia-Ukraine War provides another example: without NATO membership, one would not expect Warsaw to be so forward-leaning in calling for intervention in a conflict with a conventionally superior nuclear power, nor to take steps on its own (e.g., offering Ukraine bilateral security guarantees) that increase the risk of involvement. Because such reckless driving can lead to conflicts and confrontations involving NATO allies, they provide an ongoing risk of US entanglement in situations where the US, left to its own devices, would not be involved.

    Antagonizing Moscow

    Finally, enlargement contributed to worsened relations with Moscow. There are many reasons that US relations with Moscow soured over the last three decades, just as there are multiple drivers of Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine that has put US-Russian relations in a deep freeze. NATO enlargement, however, played an outsized role. When enlargement was first entertained in the 1990s, no less a figure than Russian President Boris Yeltsin warned that moving NATO eastward would violate assurances given against enlargement made during the 1990 negotiations over German reunification, empower Russian nationalists, and ultimately reduce the prospects for a stable post-Cold War peace.

    Then-President Clinton believed that Russian opposition could be variously ignored due to Russian weakness, overcome through engagement, or transformed through Russian democratization. Still, Russian opposition was real and pronounced: in the 1996 Russian election, Yeltsin’s opponents made the then-possibility of NATO enlargement a centerpiece of their campaigns, and Yeltsin himself resisted enlargement within the limited options available to Moscow at the time.

    After enlargement began, meanwhile, both Yeltsin and Putin underscored that the policy challenged Russian interests by limiting Russian influence in European security affairs. As Putin put it in 2007, enlargement represented “a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.” Despite these concerns, however, enlargement continued – indeed, with the Bucharest Summit’s decision to promise NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, it began to involve areas that, as US ambassador to Russia Bill Burns warned at the time, were “the brightest of all red lines” for Moscow. In turn, it is not surprising that the Russian invasion of Ukraine – tragic, unwarranted, and unjustified as it is – erupted when (1) Moscow grew concerned that Ukraine was taking practical steps that would further tie it to the alliance, and (2) US diplomatic efforts to avert an invasion refused to include discussion of NATO enlargement. Ultimately, even if some tensions with Moscow were inevitable as Russia recovered from its 1990s nadir, NATO enlargement exacerbated the scope and intensity of the problems while limiting US options for resolving tensions.

    Conclusion: The Future of Enlargement

    Taken together, NATO enlargement has had limited benefits for the United States yet carried a number of costs. Against this backdrop, the prospective future enlargement of the alliance to Ukraine – a remarkably popular policy option in Washington – is not in the United States’ interest. Although NATO’s 2024 Washington summit pledged an “inevitable” path for Ukrainian membership, making Ukraine a member would bring in a state of limited strategic value with uncertain domestic institutions, and one which Russia both considers a vital interest and is clearly willing to fight for. Conversely, the United States has demonstrated since February 2022 that it is unwilling to risk war for the sake of Ukraine, recognizing – as President Biden put it – that doing so could bring on “World War III.” Expanding the alliance to Ukraine would only deepen NATO-Russian hostility while raising profound questions over the credibility of NATO’s security guarantees to Kyiv. It is distinctly possible NATO and the United States would face simultaneous military and credibility crises.

    Three decades after it began, it is time move away from NATO enlargement. This is not a bad thing, as policies can and should be adjusted in response to changing international conditions. NATO enlargement began when the post-Cold War world was coming into focus and the United States’ unipolar era made many policies look relatively cheap and easy to pursue. Those conditions are no longer with us, and the costs and benefits of enlargement have proven different than what was expected. A course correction is in order.

    Joshua Shifrinson

    Non-resident Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; Associate Professor, University of Maryland

  • NY Times: CIA Built 12 Secret Spy Bases in Ukraine…

    NY Times: CIA Built 12 Secret Spy Bases in Ukraine…

    NY Times: CIA Built 12 Secret Spy Bases in Ukraine Waging Shadow War Against Russia Since 2014 – John Brennan Caught in the Middle of It

    On Sunday, The New York Times published a rare US admission that US intelligence has not only been instrumental in Ukraine’s wartime decision-making but has established and financed high-tech command-and-control spy centers and was doing so long prior to the Feb. 24 Russian invasion of two years ago.

    According to Zero Hedge, The New York Times admitted that the program was established a decade ago and spans three different American presidents. The Times says the CIA program to modernize Ukraine’s intelligence services has “transformed” the former Soviet state and its capabilities into “Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.”

    Zero Hedge reported:

    This means that with the disclosure of the longtime “closely guarded secret” the world just got a big step closer to WW3, given it means the CIA is largely responsible for the effectiveness of the recent spate of attacks which have included direct drone hits on key oil refineries and energy infrastructure.

    “Without them [the CIA and elite commandoes it’s trained], there would have been no way for us to resist the Russians, or to beat them,” according to Ivan Bakanov, former head of the SBU, which is Ukraine’s domestic intelligence agency.

    A main source of the NYT revelationsdisclosures which might come as no surprise to those never willing to so easily swallow the mainstream ‘official’ narrative of eventsis identified as a top intelligence commander named Gen. Serhii Dvoretskiy.

    Clearly, Kiev and Washington now want the world to know of the deep intelligence relationship they tried to conceal for over the past decade.

    Kanekoa the Great posted this viral report earlier today on X.

    The New York Times disclosed yesterday that the CIA built “12 Secret Spy Bases” in Ukraine, waging a shadow war against Russia for the past decade.

    After a U.S.-supported violent coup toppled Ukraine’s democratically elected government, CIA Director John Brennan visited Kyiv in April 2014.

    Shortly after, the new Ukrainian government launched an “anti-terror operation” against its Russian-speaking citizens in Eastern Ukraine.

    For eight years leading up to Russia’s invasion in 2022, Ukraine’s government, with help from the CIA, relentlessly bombed Eastern Ukraine.

    Millions of innocent civilians were caught in the crossfire of a geopolitical chess match between Russia and the United States.

    This is part of the story often ignored by the Western press.

    https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1762199551031787734?s=20

    Of course, at The Gateway Pundit reported, the US also had biolabs in Ukraine until recently.

    Russian Defence Ministry briefing showing US-sponsored biolabs on Ukraininan territory. Photo : Russian Ministry of Defence

    It wasn’t that long ago that Mitt Romney was threatening former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for suggesting the US was funding biolabs in Ukraine.

    Back in March 2022, RINO Senator Mitt Romney accused former Democrat Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of spreading ‘treasonous lies’ for simply talking about the US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

    “There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release and spread deadly pathogens to US/world.” Gabbard Told FOX News earlier that week.

    “We must take action now to prevent disaster. US/Russia/Ukraine/NATO/UN/EU must implement a ceasefire now around these labs until they’re secured and pathogens destroyed,” she added.

    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1502960938147729413?s=20

    Tulsi Gabbard made her statement based on testimony from the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in Eurasia, Victoria Nuland.

    Victoria Nuland admitted during testimony before a US Senate committee the existence of biological research labs in Ukraine.

    Less than 24 hours later, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that reports of biolabs in Ukraine were fake news propagated by Russia.

    The Democrat-fake news-media complex then attacked anyone who brought up the biolabs in Ukraine.

    Mitt Romney lashed out at Tulsi Gabbard, saying, “Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.”

    Then this happened– Russia released alleged captured documents from Ukraine exposing evidence of US Military Biolabs in Ukraine.

    Russia made the accusations in front of the United Nations General Assembly.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/breaking-russia-releases-captured-documents-un-special-council-meeting-exposing-evidence-us-military-biolabs-ukraine-video/embed/#?secret=6CbSo2w0Ga#?secret=9jiLO2UuDM

    Now this–

    The Pentagon then finally admitted in a public statement that there are 46 US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

    This is after months of lies and denials by Democrats, the Biden regime, and their fake news mainstream media!

    The Pentagon FINALLY came clean.

    The United States has also worked collaboratively to improve Ukraine’s biological safety, security, and disease surveillance for both human and animal health, providing support to 46 peaceful Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and disease diagnostic sites over the last two decades. The collaborative programs have focused on improving public health and agricultural safety measures at the nexus of nonproliferation.

    Here is a screengrab from the US Department of Defense website.

    The US intelligence services have been operating in Ukraine for years now.

    Via DC Draino.

    https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1762219014586073156?s=20
    https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/1761567086667763840?s=20
    https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/1761567096692175010?s=20
    https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/1761567108729917808?s=20
    https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/1761567120717222101?s=20
    https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/1761567130200510547?s=20
    https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/1761567140023554539?s=20
    https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/1761567149968253073?s=20
    https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/1761567159715774686?s=20
    https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/1761567169597567107?s=20
    https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247/status/1761567177931714611?s=20
  • The View From Here

    The View From Here

    Featured Image: West Canada Creek near Nobleboro NY. West Canada creek is one of the premier trout streams in the southern Adirondack region.

    As the Russian war of aggression 3 day Special Military Operation in Ukraine enters its 99th week, the Russian Air Force suffered the loss of two aircraft yesterday. A Beriev A-50 “Mainstay” AEW&C plane -think AWACS- and an Illushin IL-22 “Coot” ISR/airborne command and control plane were hit over the sea of Azov. The Mainstay was shot down, while the heavily damaged Coot managed to make a landing at a nearby airfield.

    In addition a Russian Ilyushin Il-20M was also hit in this area and signaled mayday, including the attempt for an emergency landing in Anapa, Russia, as well as the request for ambulances. There is no information that the plane arrived at the destination but even if then it was certainly severely damaged. The cause for both incidents are still a matter of speculation, but the fact that two valuable Russian birds got hit at the same time and the same region, make enemy fire the most plausible explanation.

    This is a costly loss for the Russians, as there were only 8 of the A-50 and 11 of the IL-22m air-frames ever built. It is believed that Lt. General Oleg Pchela, commander of the long-range aviation of the Russian Air Force, was on board the A-50 aircraft destroyed by Ukraine.


    I’m seeing three theories being bandied about regarding the shoot-downs. First is it was a Russian ‘friendly fire’ incident. I personally find that hard to swallow as we are talking about two C&C birds that are both linked into the Russian ADA net.

    The second theory floating around is some sort of SAM trap executed by Ukraine. While this is possible, sources I trust say the interception by Ukraine has would have been at or near the max range of the Patriot PAC2 missile and outside the range of any of the other ADA missiles Ukraine has access to.

    The third theory, and the one I think most plausible, involves an air-to-air kill with UA SU-27s or MiG 29s armed with AIM 120 AMRAAM missiles. The damage to the tail section of the COOT looks like the damage I’d expect from that particular warhead vice the PAC2 warhead. Anyway, FAFO


    The IRGC took direct credit for a complex missile and drone attack on targets in Iraqi Kurdistan and Northern Syria. The IRGC said it was targeting the “headquarters of spies” and “anti-Iranian terrorist gatherings in parts of the region” with ballistic missiles. The sites struck were close to US locations in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. No US facilities were struck and there weren’t any US casualties, but the strikes were called ‘imprecise and reckless’ by one US official.


    I really wish someone other than POTATUS or the Prostate kid was in charge. This kind of escalation really needs to be answered, as in Operation Praying Mantis answered. Appeasement never, ever works.

    As Admiral Painter said in Red October “This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”

    **** As I was getting ready to publish this piece, some new information crossed the transom. The IRGC struck Baluch separatist bases in Pakistan. As I’m sure you know, the Pakistanis have fucking nukes, several dozen of them. What Iran is thinking, I don’t know.


    SCOTUS is set to hear oral arguments in Loper Bright v Raimundo and Relentless v Department of Commerce. At issue is a regulatory ruling forcing commercial fishermen to pay the salaries of compliance observers on their boats. The payment requirement is based on an interpretation of federal law by the National Marine Fisheries Service. These two cases are the biggest of the January term.

    These cases stem from a 1984 case called Chevron v National Resources Defense Council, Inc. The ruling in that case created what is known as the Chevron deference. Chevron deference consists of a two-part test that is deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, “whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”


    While I am not a lawyer, it’s my opinion that Chevron was badly decided. The Chevron deference is what created the modern regulatory state. It’s way past time to overturn Chevron and rein in the regulatory state in all its forms. This may be the Court that does just that. Here’s hoping. . .


    Got a story to share? A comment on anything above? Let us know in the comments below.

  • The View From Here

    The View From Here

    Featured Image: Oswego NY harbor lighthouse in winter. For reference, the breakwall that the wave is breaking over is 15′ tall.

    Putin’s war in Ukraine is now in week 97. It started as a 3 week special military operation. Of late, mainly because of the bezdorizhzhia, or time of roadlessness, there has been little movement on the front lines. Ukraine is waging deep battle far behind the front lines and shaping the battlefield for winter. The Russians are continuing their terror missile and drone attacks on civilian targets. Of note is the fact that of 10 Kinzhal ‘hypersonic’ missiles fired at Ukraine on New Years Day, all 10 were intercepted by the US/Western supplied PAC3 Patriot ADA system.

    https://twitter.com/Cyberdefensecom/status/1742377516398965099?s=20

    I know some of you out there disagree with me on the Ukraine situation, but the simple fact is all of the foot dragging by the collective west is dragging us closer and closer to WWIII. And no, that is not hyperbole. Xi, the Ayatollahs, Kim in NK and to a lesser degree Putin all see the lack of resolve in Ukraine as weakness. Weakness they can and will exploit.


    South Korea ordered the evacuation of a pair of islands near the maritime border with the North. The evacuation of Yeonpyeong-do and Baeknyeong-do was ordered in response to North Korea firing some 200 artillery rounds into the maritime buffer zone near one of the islands.

    The blue line, the Northern Limit line was established as part of the 1953 armistice. In 1999, the North unilaterally claimed the waters between the blue and red lines on the map. This week’s events were set into motion by a North Korean ship crossing the Northern Limit Line on Monday and being turned back by South Korean troops firing warning shots. North Korea later said it conducted firing drills as a “natural response” to military actions by South Korea’s “military gangsters” in recent days. It also threatened an “unprecedented strong response” if Seoul continued to make provocative moves.

    Huh, didn’t I just mention Kim above? While artillery exchanges are not unknown in that particular area, what’s different this time is the stated posture of the Norks regarding the ROKs. In remarks to a major party meeting last week, Kim Jung Un said Pyongyang was changing its policy towards the South, which it now sees as an enemy state. Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if the change is a response to the lack-of-response by the ROK and US regarding the dozens of ballistic missile tests this year.


    Indian navy commandos responded to a distress call in the Arabian Sea today. The MV Lila Norfolk, a 170000 DWT Liberian flagged bulker, was boarded by pirates off the Somali coast. The crew retreated to the ‘citadel’ and called for help. The commandos were from the Indian naval warship INS Chennai. They boarded and ‘sanitized’ the vessel after flying over from the Chennai.

    https://twitter.com/UK_MTO/status/1742930209966612880?s=20

    I’m guessing the Indian response was mainly because Indian nationals made up the bulk of the crew of the Lila Norfolk. Then again, it might be that Modi understands that if trade gets choked off in the Red/Suez it’s going to tank the Indian economy. Either way, the goddamned Indians have had a better response than the US so far.


    Abu Taqwa Al Si’adi, the commander of Harakat Hezbollah al Nujaba, a powerful Iranian-backed militia based in Iraq and Syria was killed in an airstrike yesterday. Si’adi also served as the deputy director of operations for the Popular Mobilization Forces in what is known as the Baghdad Belts, or the regions surrounding Baghdad.

    Thursday’s strike marked just the seventh by the U.S. against the Iranian-backed militias, which have launched 115 attack on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. The first six U.S. attacks targeted weapons storage facilities, safe houses or vehicles involved in attacks. This was the first to target a commander of the militias.

    The U.S. military did not officially confirm the strike, however an anonymous official told The Wall Street Journal that the target “had American blood on his hands.”

    Oh no, anyway. . .

    The keyword for this administration seems to be ‘proportionality’, at least in the Middle East. I would think that means there should have been 115 airstrikes not 7.


    A B1B Lancer out of Ellsworth AFB crashed yesterday. All four crew members ejected safely. The statement from the public affairs office for the 28th Bomb Wing, the main unit at Ellsworth, reads:

    An Air Force B-1B Lancer assigned to Ellsworth Air Force Base crashed at approximately 5:50 p.m. today while attempting to land on the installation. At the time of the accident, it was on a training mission. There were four aircrew on board. All four ejected safely.

    A board of officers will investigate the accident.

    Additional details will be provided as they become available. For questions regarding this incident, contact the 28th Bomb Wing Public Affairs Office at (605) 385-5056, or by e-mail at 28bw.public.affairs@us.af.mil.

    The Bone has suffered from a number of class A mishaps recently and the entire fleet was grounded in 2019 due to an ejection system issue.

    Look, all aircraft are one minor failure away from succumbing to gravity. The more complex the airframe is, the more likely it is that something will go wrong. That said, given that a pretty good portion of the B1 fleet is sitting at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan for financial reasons, I think there might be some maintenance issues.

    Got a comment about any of the stories here? Got a story you want to share or get my take on? Let us know in the comments below.

  • Random News And Notes

    Random News And Notes

    I hope everyone had an enjoyable Christmas. Your editor managed to unplug for the entire day and caught up on his reading. Unfortunately, it seems a lot happened during that time.

    We’ll start in Crimea, the port of Fedosia specifically. Fedosia is the only port in Crimea that still hosts Russian Naval vessels, as it had been deemed too far from Ukrainian held territory to be struck effectively. That myth was forcefully put to rest last night. At approximately 2:30 a.m. local time, Ukrainian air-launched (either French SCALP-EG or British Storm Shadow) cruise missiles struck the Ropucha class LST Novocherkassk, sinking her at moorings. Watch:

    It is being reported that she was being used as a storage facility for Iranian Shaheed drones. Debris from the strike was found in a supermarket parking lot several hundred meters from the blast. Imagery coming from Russia shows the ship nearly completely submerged. The colored rectangles in both images correspond.

    This was not Novocherkassk’s first go-round. She was damaged by a Ukrainian Tochka U ballistic missile in March of last year. I don’t think she can be saved at this point. . .


    The head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Brigadier General Sayyed Reza Mousavi, was killed in a missile strike near Damascus Syria yesterday. While the IDF is refusing to comment, it is believed to be an Israeli operation. Mousavi was a protegee of Qasim Solemani, who you’ll remember got sliced and diced by the Hellfire with Swords a few years back.


    Iran backed Kaitib Hezbollah militias in Iraq launched rockets at Erbil airport early yesterday, injuring three US service members, one critically. POTATUS waited until 1700 EDT to authorize strikes against them and other affiliated militias in Iraq. The strikes hit storage facilities. The administration stressed the response was proportional. Frankly, the group running our National defense team are unserious fools. They need to read a book or three. We need to replay operation Praying Mantis. For those of you unaware, The Fat Electrician explains it better than I can:


    Remember the Chinese spy balloon? Yeah, the Biden administration wanted to keep it from everyone it seems, even Congress. According to new reporting based on statements from senior Pentagon officials, the administration wanted to keep the whole thing quiet for unknown reasons. Then someone spotted the balloon over Montana. The balloon was first detected somewhere over the Pacific before making landfall in Alaska 27 January.


    Staying Stateside, there’s yet another large migrant caravan headed to the southern border. This one left the city of Tapachula, Mexico, near the border with Guatemala with around 7,000 people. The southern border isn’t alone, the northern border is also seeing an unsustainable spike in illegal crossings.

    I dunno, maybe some minefields or strafing runs might help. . .


    The price of a first class stamp will go up come 21 January. The USPS announced the cost of a stamp will go up two cents from 66 to 68. Shipping rates will go up too, an estimated 6%. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t used the USPS much over the past few years. I doubt the increase will affect me much.


    Got a story to share? Some commentary on the stories above? Drop it in the comments below.

  • Report Uncovers Our Taxpayer Dollars…

    Report Uncovers Our Taxpayer Dollars…

    Report Uncovers Our Taxpayer Dollars Are Going to Far More Than a War Effort in Ukraine

    Ukraine has been begging America for billions of dollars since its war with Russia started and Washington has been more than happy to fork it over by the truckloads as a means to weaken Putin, but as it turns out, our money has been enriching Ukraine, not just helping it fight a war. 

    This report comes from CBS of all places. In a segment on “60 Minutes,” reporters went to Ukraine to see how our money was being spent. Sure enough, they found war machines and weapons, but then they left the front. 

    While some of the money is being given to other war-adjacent efforts such as the training of rescue dogs and bomb detection in the rivers and creeks of Ukraine to keep unexploded bombs from harming civilians, our money is going to Ukraine’s economy in various ways.

    As it turns out, our money is also going to farmers, purchasing seeds and fertilizer: 

    American taxpayers are financing more than just weapons. We discovered the U.S. government’s buying seeds and fertilizer for Ukrainian farmers… and covering the salaries of Ukraine’s first responders – all 57,000 of them.

    We’re also subsidizing Ukraine’s businesses: 

    Russia’s invasion shrank Ukraine’s economy by about a third. We were surprised to find that to keep it afloat the U.S. government is subsidizing small businesses…

    …like Tatiana Abramova’s knitwear company.

    According to 60 Minutes, USAID has helped Abramova’s knitting business find customers overseas. The reason we’re paying for her business? According to Abramova, the Ukrainian economy is the backbone of the war.

    Given the amount of money we’ve sent, it seems that the American taxpayer is the real backbone of this war: 

    In total, America’s pumped nearly $25 billion of non-military aid into Ukraine’s economy since the invasion began – and you can see it working at the bustling farmers market on John McCain Street in central Kyiv.

     We’re also paying the salaries of Ukrainian first responders. All 57,000 of them. 

    https://x.com/60Minutes/status/1706088303970152541?s=20

     

    While it’s probably not surprising that billions of our taxpayer dollars are going to things other than the war effort, what really chaps American backsides is that all of this help is going to non-military Ukrainians while Americans are struggling in a myriad of ways themselves, especially in places like Maui where a fire sent the death toll to around 1,000 and the destruction they suffered was met with the Biden administration handing them a paltry $700. 

    As Honolulu Civil Beat noted, the Biden administration sought more aid for Maui to the tune of $12 billion, but tying $24.1 billion in more aid to Ukraine to it, forcing Republicans to block it: 

    But the effort to get a speedy appropriation has foundered after the Biden administration sought $12 billion in emergency funding that would extend disaster relief programs while simultaneously requesting some $24.1 billion in military spending for Ukraine in the same package.

    That means that funding Hawaii’s needs for Maui’s recovery has been tied to funding to back Ukraine’s military, an increasingly unpopular topic in some Republican circles. When the House passed its fiscal 2024 defense authorization bill early this summer, a contingent of several dozen House Republicans sought to prohibit additional U.S. assistance to Ukraine.

    As all of this is happening, more and more is being revealed about the corruption in Ukraine. As RedState reported, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul himself denounced Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenski for canceling Ukraine’s elections and the ruling party effectively becoming tyrants:

    They’ve banned the political parties, they’ve invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests. So no, it isn’t a democracy, it’s a corrupt regime. Are the Russians any better? No, the Russians are worse, but at the same time, we don’t always have to pick some side to be on, but the ultimate reason I’m against this is we don’t have the money and when we borrow more money it leads to more inflation, leads to more likelihood of recession in our country, and so we can’t keep doing it.

    We’re funding Ukraine to the detriment of the American people, and it would seem Democrats are more than willing to hurt the American people more in order to make Ukraine better. We don’t have the cash to fund Ukraine, and we especially have better uses for what we borrow here in the States. However, the Democrats are continuously choosing America last.

    They’re certainly putting the Ukrainian people first.

    Source: https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2023/09/25/report-uncovers-our-taxpayer-dollars-are-going-to-far-more-than-a-war-effort-in-ukraine-n2164254

  • Pentagon Says Ukraine Support Will Continue…

    Pentagon Says Ukraine Support Will Continue…

    Pentagon Says Ukraine Support Will Continue as Part of ‘Essential Operations’ During Government Shutdown

    The military branch says the United States should still be able to fund Ukraine support, even if it can’t fund itself.

    While the government could soon shut down without a budget in place, the U.S. military anticipates it will still be able to provide training and support for Ukrainian military forces currently fighting with Russia.

    In a statement shared with NTD News, Department of Defense spokesman Chris Sherwood said Operation Atlantic Resolve, the U.S. military mission that oversees training and supplying Ukrainian forces with military weapons and equipment, will continue even if there is a government shutdown.

    Earlier this week, Mr. Sherwood told Politico that a government shutdown could disrupt U.S. efforts in support of the Ukrainian government. The DOD has since determined that these efforts to support the Ukrainian government would be included among the “essential operations” the U.S. government continues even during shutdowns.

    “Operation Atlantic Resolve is an excepted activity under a government lapse in appropriations, which is consistent with DOD’s Contingency Plan Guidance For Continuation Of Essential Operations In The Absence Of Available Appropriations,” Mr. Sherwood wrote.

    It’s unclear what led the DOD to change its assessment and determine that support for the Ukrainian government would continue.

    During a Thursday press conference, Pentagon Press Secretary Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters that Ukrainian pilots will soon arrive in the U.S. to undergo training to fly F-16 fighter jets.

    Biden Holds Bilateral Meeting With Ukraine President Volodymyr ZelenskyyPlay Video

    • “As I understand it, for F-16 training, work or delivery of any equipment funded on previous USAI [Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative] notifications such as F-16 pilot training, that would continue,” Gen. Ryder said. “Execution could be impacted by furloughs and DOD’s suspension of non-excepted activities. So in other words, the training would happen, but depending on—on whether or not there were certain personnel that were not able to report for duty, for example, that—that could have an impact on it.”

    President Joe Biden’s administration also announced a new $325 million security assistance package for Ukraine on Thursday.

    Ukraine Aid Fueling Budget Debate

    The risk of a government shutdown is brought on by a fractured Congress. Beyond the expected challenge of reconciling any budget proposals between the Democrat-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House, there are also divisions within the Republican House majority that are holding up a budget deal.

    A major point of division comes between the staunchly conservative House Freedom Caucus, which is asking for more limits on discretionary spending and other conservative policy riders, and more conciliatory wings of House Republicans. Some House Republicans had thought they’d reached a deal to unite their party on a budget plan, but too many House Freedom Caucus members opposed the deal.

    Another deal appeared to be picking up momentum with House Republicans on Thursday, but it remains to be seen if it will go through.

    Congress has just days left to decide on how to fund the government in fiscal year 2024. The current fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.

    Several Republicans have signaled that more funding for Ukraine could be a budget deal breaker.

    In an Aug. 31 meeting with her constituents, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) described new funding for Ukraine as a “red line” in budget negotiations that would lead her to vote against a bill.

    Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.)—one of the key House Freedom Caucus players taking part in the intraparty budget debate—signaled opposition to new Ukraine aid this week as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in Washington.

    “There’s no money in the House right now for Ukraine. There’s just not, it’s not there,” Mr. Donalds told a reporter on Tuesday. “To be blunt, we’re running a $2 trillion deficit. Any money we give to Ukraine, we’re borrowing from our future.

    Mr. Donalds added that “it’s not a good time” for Mr. Zelenskyy to visit.

    On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave notice that he would attempt to block an expedited passage of any budget deal that includes additional spending for Ukraine.

    Mr. Paul and Mr. Donalds were among a group of six Republican senators and 22 Republican representatives who wrote to the White House Office of Management and Budget, stating they would oppose a Biden administration request for more Ukraine-related funding. The Republican lawmakers signaled no support for new Ukraine aid until they get answers on how the United States is tracking its existing aid to Ukraine and how the Biden administration will define its goals, measures of success, and exit plan for its ongoing strategy of propping up Ukraine against Russia.

    Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/pentagon-says-ukraine-support-will-continue-as-part-of-essential-operations-during-government-shutdown-5496806