Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/16/2025 7:30:15 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
France and Italy will not take part in a new NATO-led initiative to finance the delivery of U.S. weapons to Ukraine, Politico and La Stampa reported on July 16, citing undisclosed government officials in both countries.
Despite being a long-standing supporter of Ukraine, France has opted out of the plan, which was unveiled during U.S. President Donald Trump's meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Washington on July 14.
Under this scheme, NATO will purchase advanced arms from the U.S., including air defense systems, and deliver some of them to Ukraine.
According to two French officials, France declined to join the plan because of President Emmanuel Macron's push for European nations to strengthen their own defense industries by purchasing domestically produced arms.
France is also contending with budget constraints and rising defense spending targets amid broader economic pressures, Politico wrote.
Italy, meanwhile, has taken a similar position. According to La Stampa, Italian officials ruled out direct purchases of U.S. weapons, citing fiscal limitations and the country's focus on different technological systems, such as the Italian-French-made SAMP/T air defense system already supplied to Ukraine.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Haven’t world leaders learned by now that you don’t mess with a “deal” that Trump has made.
Italy and France better step up their defense spending to 5% of GDP immediately on NATO and figure out how to send domestically produced weapons desired by Ukraine or they are going to face the wrath of Trump. It could be tariffs to pay for weapons to Ukraine, it could be something altogether different, but it will be something.
To betray them simply because we changed our minds is callous and cynical in the extreme.
It’s not callous and cynical. It’s an inherent characteristic of democratic governance. These foreign leaders would do well to keep that in mind. It’s high time that we put and end to the days of having U.S. foreign policy dictated by the employers of Lindsey Graham and the Biden family.
SHOCKED
How could it make the war spread when Putin has said all of Ukraine is Russia’s?
How could the war spread when Russia cannot take all of Ukraine after 3 and a half years?? Russia does not have the troops or money to take any country.
“And notice no country in Western Europe has instituted a draft.
Can’t be too scared of the Rooskies, can they?
Especially since they’ve been violating sanctions all along.”
____________________________________________________________
Have you noticed our own United States of America hasn’t reinstituted the draft? We have military personnel and assets stretched out thin and to Kingdom Come across the globe, with many assigned to multiple serial deployments.
At least the Brits have been giving early warning to their citizens that a draft is likely to return. What have we been doing?
Nothing but whining.
Timeline of U.S. Commitments to Support Ukraine (2014–2025)
2014: Outbreak of War and Initial U.S. Support
February–March: Russia annexes Crimea; U.S. government condemns the action.
Spring: Conflict ignites in Donbas; U.S. begins non-lethal security assistance to Ukraine, supplying items such as night vision devices, body armor, and medical supplies.
Congressional Action: Passage of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, authorizing sanctions and military aid.
Obama Administration & Officials: Official statements condemn Russia’s actions, call for international support of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
2015–2016: Security Assistance and Congressional Support
Security Assistance: Continued provision of non-lethal aid (Humvees, patrol boats, counter-artillery radar); total U.S. support surpasses $1.5 billion by 2016.
Congress: Regular appropriations for Ukrainian defense and Congressional delegations express solidarity through official visits and statements.
U.S. Officials: High-profile visits and public support statements from defense and diplomatic leaders.
2017–2019: Shift to Lethal Weaponry
December 2017: Trump administration approves the direct supply of lethal defensive aid for the first time, including sniper rifles and ammunition.
March 2018: First sale of 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 37 launchers to Ukraine for $47 million is approved by President Trump. This marks the transition from exclusively non-lethal to lethal military support.
Late 2019: Congress appropriates $391 million in military aid (controversially withheld and then released); ongoing debates and hearings on U.S. aid to Ukraine.
2020–2021: Escalation in Aid and Political Backing
2020: Congress continues to fund security assistance and reaffirms bipartisan support.
August 2021: The Biden administration authorizes a $60 million drawdown shipment, expanding the scope of military aid (including non-lethal and lethal items).
Diplomatic Statements: Senior officials, including Secretaries of State and Defense, routinely declare steadfast U.S. support for Ukrainian sovereignty.
2022: Full-Scale Russian Invasion and Major U.S. Commitments
February: Russia launches a full-scale invasion. The U.S. Congress and Biden administration dramatically escalate aid:
$112+ billion appropriated in 2022.
Immediate shipments of Javelins, Stingers, and other critical weapons systems.
Additional $800 million in security assistance in March.
April: President Biden visits Poland, congressional delegations meet President Zelenskyy in Kyiv. Additional $750 million in aid sent.
Statements: President Biden and other U.S. leaders repeatedly affirm support for Ukraine “as long as it takes.” Secretaries of State and Defense issue frequent public declarations and coordinate allied support.
2023: Sustained Military, Humanitarian, and Policy Support
February: The U.S. marks the first anniversary of the invasion by sending $2 billion in arms and $250 million for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
Spring–Summer: New aid tranches, including $300 million and cluster munitions, F-16s greenlit for transfer after pilot training.
Congress: Additional bills passed to continue funding weapon deliveries and oversight.
Presidential Statements: Biden authorizes use of long-range ATACMS missiles and allows Ukraine to strike Russian territory near Kharkiv with U.S. weapons.
2024: Continued Aid and High-Level Coordination
April: $95 billion aid package passed in the House, includes major support for Ukraine.
Direct Presidential Action: Authorizes further uses of American weapons; administration and Congress remain aligned in providing substantial new assistance.
Allied Diplomatic Engagement: The U.S. meets with European officials for coordinated strategies and ongoing peace summits, affirming that Ukraine and Europe must be central to any negotiations.
2025: Trump Administration and Policy Shift
January: Trump administration institutes an executive order pausing foreign assistance, resulting in a review and temporary halt of most State and USAID programs (humanitarian aid continues under waivers).
February: President Trump pushes for peace negotiations, warning of high tariffs and further sanctions against Russia if talks fail. Also agrees to continued arms provision if Ukraine pursues a ceasefire; attaches more responsibility for funding arms supplies to Europe.
Statements: The U.S. Secretary of Defense calls returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders “unrealistic,” signaling a policy shift focused on negotiations and limiting American military expenditure.
Congress: Ongoing legislative action, support statements for sanctions, and bipartisanship about continued U.S. oversight during the transition.
Representative Statements and Foreign Officer Actions
Throughout the conflict: U.S. presidents, cabinet members, and senior diplomats consistently condemn Russian aggression, pledge continued aid, and call for allied unity. Congress releases bipartisan statements expressing “ironclad” commitment to supporting Ukraine’s fight for democracy.
European Reactions: Foreign leaders coordinate policy and military assistance with the U.S., publicly supporting Ukraine and engaging with American officials on negotiation frameworks.
It’s not callous and cynical. It’s an inherent characteristic of democratic governance. These foreign leaders would do well to keep that in mind. It’s high time that we put and end to the days of having U.S. foreign policy dictated by the employers of Lindsey Graham and the Biden family.
Not a single one of these allegations bears relationship to reality. See the extent and nature of the commitments made by the United States in the next reply. The only breach in all these years has been done by Donald Trump and that was half-assed and now partially reversed-or something.
There is no departure from an international conspiracy, in fact there is no departure.
Not surprised at them not paying.
Everyone knows the American taxpayer will pay.
It’s very telling that you went to such great lengths to document a “timeline of U.S. commitments to support Ukraine” ... and completely left out any reference to Ukrainian interests openly bribing the U.S. government (through the Biden family) in the process.
You allege by way of diversion that there is evidence of "Ukrainian interests openly bribing the U.S. government (through the Biden family) in the process."
Let's see some substance. That should not be hard to provide if the bribing is indeed so "open." Hunter Biden's corruption with Barisma is widely known but its effect on overall American policy corruptly creating support for Ukraine's war effort has not been established. It is this connection that is critical for our discussion because this is raised as a justification for betrayal.
I await substance in this regard.
How stupid do you think people are?
Within 45 seconds or less AI wrote at a timeline that provides substance refuting isolationists' argument that Ukraine was not our ally, that we did not encourage and finance Ukraine's war, that we owe Ukraine nothing.
It also demonstrated that the support for the war was a thoroughly integrated United States government policy over the years, hardly the product of some unspecified sort of international conspiracy of elitists.
Now the argument moves to, the Ukrainians are corrupt and they corrupted United States into supporting them. Prove it.
How are these two mutually exclusive? And what makes this "integrated United States government policy" a good idea and/or a compelling national interest in the first place?
” The only breach in all these years has been done by Donald Trump and that was half-assed and now partially reversed-or something.”
Apparently, one important difference is that Trump’s wife has been telling him about her experiences growing up in Tito’s Yugoslavia where the fight was to avoid being swallowed whole by the Russian snake while still retaining some independent national rights. Ukraine would not even have any independent national rights if swallowed whole by Putin’s Russia.
Another influence on Trump is probably his growing up with his successful but harsh father. Trump has written about how his father’s treatment of his brother led to his alcoholism and death. Trump also had experience with the NY and NJ Mafia types embedded in the real estate and casino businesses. He has probably been temporarily fooled by Putin’s facade of politeness and good manners. After several attempts to get Putin involved in negotiations, Trump now seems to realize Putin has no interest in good faith negotiation, or even bad faith negotiation. All Putin wants is total control of Ukraine and victory. Since Trump is at heart a businessman, he is dropping futile efforts to have any productive negotiations with Putin, and now work with Ukraine which as a country has certainly shown much more creativity and hard productive work abilities. There is much potential business with Ukraine’s mineral resources, drones, reconstruction, and agriculture. Even if Putin were gone, Russia though larger would be much less promising as a business partner. The Russian people have been productively ruined by so many decades of Soviet and socialist mistreatment and neglect.
What part of “They will send their Patriot batteries to Ukraine. Then buy new ones from the U.S.” don’t you understand, or do you not listen to recent daily news or read information posted in this thread?
Go F Yourself Zeeper.
In order to function on a conservative thread and not descend into a Kafkaesque nightmare, we have to adhere to definitional sanity. That which is universally believed is not a conspiracy, it is a consensus.
what makes this "integrated United States government policy" a good idea and/or a compelling national interest in the first place?
The preservation of the sovereignty and liberty of a nation free from illegal invasion is a compelling national interest of the United States that prompted Donald Trump to send Javelins to deter the invasion in 2020 and prompted him again in 2025 to forward Patriot missiles to repel that invasion.
How much did Hunter Biden’s $3million deal in Moscow influence our decisions regarding Russia? How much are Trump and family deals in the Middle East influenceing our decisions and actions there? How much of any of this is pure business, and how much is patriotism and honor of commitments?
I’m sorry, but I am no longer capable of such acrobatic excess.
Still in a 1/2 a..ed fit 47 has given Putin 50 days to operate with impunity & kill as many Ukraine civilians as possible, signalling to Putin his continued naivety by withholding US made long range missiles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.