Their idea was to tie approval of military assistance to Ukraine to tough border security demands that Democrats would never accept, allowing Republicans to block the money for Kyiv that many of them oppose while simultaneously enabling them to pound Democrats for refusing to halt a surge of migrants at the border. It was to be a win-win headed into November’s elections.

But Democrats tripped them up by offering substantial — almost unheard-of — concessions on immigration policy without insisting on much in return. Now it is Republicans who are rapidly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in deep jeopardy, border policy in turmoil and Congress again flailing as multiple crises at home and abroad go without attention because of a legislative stalemate.

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    11 months ago

    They didn’t, though. They’re doing their paymaster’s bidding just fine, stalling Ukraine aid.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      11 months ago

      It kind of makes the point that this is what they’re doing even more explicit. The stuff they claim to care about? Not so much. Helping Putin? Definitely.

      • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        From a Euro-Nato layman’s point of view, our alliance with the US has become more a liability than anything else. Believing that we can rely on you (like you did on us after 9/11) looks more and more like a trap which diverts our energy and attention away from our own interests.

        • UsernameHere@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          11 months ago

          How is it a liability? Russia is a threat to Euro-NATO nations. It is in your/their best interests to have the US help against Russia even if US Republicans try to prevent it.

          • svc@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            Maybe the US is not a liability in itself, but trusting the US can be a liability. It’s like a group project when you have a partner that you know won’t do any work. You have to do their part too so that the whole group isn’t brought down.

            If Trump returns to office or the GOP controls the legislature, NATO will have to do all the work to defend against Russia that it might have otherwise expected the US to help with.

            • UsernameHere@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              Right I get that, but the alternative is no help from the US. Which is less beneficial to Europe/NATO than some help until/if Republicans block additional help.

              • pearable@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I think it’s more useful to look at military spending over the last three decades. NATO membership entails spending 2% of GDP on their military. The US is one of few countries in NATO that have actually kept up with that. A couple countries have followed suit but many have been lax. Recently that trend has reversed and more countries are ramping up military buildup, in part due to the US’s recent flaky foreign policy. A huge amount of military industry is outsourced to the US as well. Lots of weapons are made there and the prospect of losing your primary source of military industry due to political instability isn’t appealing.

                Basically, folks got lulled into a false sense of security.

                That’s a narrative I’ve heard but I honestly can’t speak to how valid it is. I find western media’s discussion of US military hegemeny suspect.

                • PugJesus@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  That’s a narrative I’ve heard but I honestly can’t speak to how valid it is.

                  It’s pretty valid. Between the end of the Cold War and now, most European countries have chosen to wind down military spending, sometimes to an excessive degree. In the 2011 Libya Intervention, the US was initially content to sit back and let Europe handle an affair close to Europe - until it emerged that our allies had started to run out of precision munitions after a few weeks of strikes.

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  A few years ago, you’d be shouted down for saying that. Problem was that it’s true, and the Ukraine invasion woke up a lot of European leaders that they need to fund their own militaries to at least a base level. Nobody seems to argue against it anymore except the odd tankie.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Historically, the US is the one propping up Europe. It’s been criticized for that for decades:

              .

              I don’t completely disagree, because the entire situation with aid to Ukraine shows how fickle the US can be. If it was up Trump, Ukraine would have got nothing from the start, and there’s even a non-zero chance he’d give equipment and funds to Russia. Still, the solution is for the Europe side of NATO to get their own forces up to snuff.

          • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Considering the massive spend in the US for the generally inferior healthcare, starting to wonder if spending is even a good metric for military.

            • pearable@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              I agree spending is not a great indicator. Price of labor is a major cost associated with creating military hardware. China can spend a lot less on their military and get more due to lower labor costs. Percentage of GDP spent on Military might be a better indication? Military personnel, bases, and aircraft carriers are a better metric. Last I heard the US was far ahead of everyone else on the last two cases though.

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              It’s a decent one; the US has the ability to project force globally in a way that other countries don’t right now.

              • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                the US can’t now though because half congress are spineless lickspittles hoping to get some green piss trickledown from russian and US oligarchs.

                • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  In the event of a Russian attack on NATO, the President already has authority to get US troops involved. Having an actual fight like that tends to create a rally-round-the-flag effect which would make it a lot harder for Republicans to start saying ‘no’.

                  This would also escalate to nuclear before Congress could really change their mind, which is an incredible deterrent for Russia.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              The two have some links, as well. The full cost of the Vietnam war hit a few decades after the US pulled out. All those veterans started to use their benefits, and a big one is the VA hospital system.

              The vets from the first stages of the War on Terror are starting to hit that right about now.

              In fact, I believe that to get to the $801B number in the graph above, you have to include vet benefits. Though it’d be a huge chunk of that pie regardless.

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Nothing wrong with maintaining the defensive alliance. NATO is a matter of standardization and training cooperation, and the US is unlikely to be attacked. Just… look to your own forces in case next time there’s a crisis we have a dupe in the White House.

        • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Worked out okay for you guys in the first two world wars. Not great in a lot of cases but you’re also not posting in German. Now, if you are German, I can understand why you may not welcome us again simply out of habit but if/when #3 kicks off, we’ll be there and you’ll be happy to see us coming.

      • pearable@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t think helping Putin is really high on their list of priorities. They’re trying to craft a narrative going into the presidential election that Biden is ineffectual and corrupt.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          There’s a big difference between what Republicans say and what they do. They’ve been really consistent about helping Putin for the past several months.