415
McConnell on Ukraine proxy war: "We haven’t lost a single American in this war. Most of the money that we spend, is spent on replenishing weapons, so it’s actually employing people here."[paraphrased] (edition.cnn.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
763 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 3 years ago (14 children)

Yea, even those were in no way reasonable. Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraine's ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.

Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where you're getting that. The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraine's application was denied so there's none of that either. And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    Yea, even those were in no way reasonable.

    They're very reasonable, especially as a starting point for negotiations.

    1. Ukraine haw a very serious Nazi problem that liberals everywhere recognized right up until it became inconvenient for the war narrative. The Nazi problem is part and parcel of the civil war and failure to abide by Minsk II, as those Nazis were the tip of the spear against ethnic Ruasians in Donbas. Disempowering and jailing Nazi war criminals shouldn't be controversial.

    2. Russia wants to prevent encirclement and to treat Ukraine as a neutral buffer. Given NATO's advancements despite the fall of the Soviet Union, this demand is already a half-measure. Ukraine being militarized and used as a Western forward military base is not something Western countries would tolerate if the roles were reversed.

    3. Ukraine isn't joining NATO anyways, not anytime soon at least. This is a formalization of the aforementioned neutrality.

    4. Independence of Luhansk and Donesk is a demand that says, "you couldn't abide Minsk II and that leaves this as the only option". Ukraine and their Western masters had nearly a decade to democratically deal with the breakaway states per their own agreements and chose to instead ramp up a civil war targeting ethnic Russians right on Russia's border. The failure od the status quo ans the West's ability to follow their own rules is the proximal issue Russia is reacting to.

    5. Ukraine isn't getting Crimea back. This is a formalization that would simply amount to normalizing relations in peacetime.

    Those terms are obviously so Russia can keep conquered territories while removing Ukraine's ability to defend itself so Russia can take the whole thing in a few years.

    Russia could take the whole thing any time they wanted to, lol. They have complete air superiority and a much more powerful arsenal and manpower and tactics. They could do the American thing - the NATO thing - and destroy the rest of the country, targeting Kyiv and civilian infrastructure en masse. Instead, they are choosing a war of attrition that achieves many of their objectives without just rolling over the whole country.

    Neutrality is far safer for Ukrainians and always was. A neutral Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded by Russia in the first place.

    Also there was no ethnic cleansing, no idea where you're getting that.

    Then you haven't been paying attention. Like... at all. It's been going on since 2013/2014. Please educate yourself on the derussification efforts undertaken by Ukraine targeted at ethnic Russians as well as their ruthless targeting of the Donbas.

    The baltics joined NATO like 15 years ago and Ukraine's application was denied so there's none of that either

    None of what?

    And even if both were true those terms mean annexation for Ukraine in the future so in no way acceptable.

    Ukraine is already not a sovereign state, lol. Their political leadership was chosen by Nuland et al behind closed doors as part of Euromaidan. Neutrality would actually be the most sovereign they have any chance of being, toyed with through economic courtship rather than couped and destroyed.

    And again, Russia can annex Ukraine wherever it wants to. Most of it, at least. Poland would probably claim Western Ukraine for itself with various bullshit excuses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (12 children)
    1. It had some nazies prior to about 2020. Not even close to the amount of nazies Russia has though so that's a meaningless point.
    2. The countries joining NATO are joining because Russia keeps threatening them. If Russia just wanted a neutral zone they should really stop invading their neighbours. Georgia and Ukraine got invaded and Russia is doing a proxy war in Moldova as well so it seems the only thing causing NATO advancement is Russia.
    3. Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.
    4. One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.
    5. They may now, depending on how the war goes.

    No idea what these points are other than just lies. Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesn't now. Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia. As for the equipment and manpower: Like Russia is rolling out museum pieces as tanks I have no idea where you are getting this info from. They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.

    None of that was in reference to NATO encirclement. As in it was already encircled 15 years ago and Ukraine wasn't joining NATO.

    The political leadership Nuland 'selected' was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. That's like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.

    Can't find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.

    I'm guessing you mostly watch Russian state media since absolutely no one else thinks Russia could just take Ukraine if they wanted at this point. I'd suggest going to some other sources.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (11 children)

    It had some nazies prior to about 2020. Not even close to the amount of nazies Russia has though so that's a meaningless point.

    UA incorporated Azov Batallion into its official forces aftee the invasion and Right Sector is everywhere. What on earth are you talking about?

    You're also losing the plot if you think, "Russia has more Nazis" is relevant to whether this is a reasonable demand in this exact context where the Nazis are the shock troopa against Donbas. Also, Russia has about 5X the population of Ukraine.

    Forms of nominal hypocrisy just plain don't matter. This isn't model UN or debate club, it's powerful interests and statea vying for position based on their conditions and perspectives on what is driving developments. "Disable your ideological, genocidal forward force against Donbas" is a reasonable starting ask.

    The countries joining NATO are joining because Russia keeps threatening them. If Russia just wanted a neutral zone they should really stop invading their neighbours. Georgia and Ukraine got invaded and Russia is doing a proxy war in Moldova as well so it seems the only thing causing NATO advancement is Russia.

    Most of the encirclement happened when Russia was in turmoil, run by an America-installed ruling class. It wasn't threatening anyone, it was undergoing "shock therapy", getting dismembered, and losing tens of millions of lives.

    NATO has never been a defensive org. Article 5 has only been triggered once and it was used to launch a war of aggression (amazing). It has taken many offensive and aggreasive moves, however. This narrative that membera join for safety is absurd: it's always an escalatiom, a threat, and is done with this knowlesge. The primary thing is actually bestows is official American military bases in your country.

    And as you can see, it mase Ukrainians much more vulnerable

    Except they also demanded demilitirization. So no allies or self defence.

    This doesn't counter what I said at all.

    UA isn't joining NATO anytime soon so there is literally zero material loss for UA in that demand, and as I've argued, it actually securea a better position for the Ukrainian people, who are currently stuck acting as proxies for Western plans against Russia - and paying for it (have been since 2014).

    One if the points of that agreement to even take effect was that Russia removed their troops from the regions which they never did.

    Because UA continued to shell Donbas. RF and Donbas troops implemented ceasefires repeatedly. RF pulling out unilaterally would have meant giving UA Nazis more kills against folks in Donbas. UA refused to actually work together to end the war there and implement the required referenda.

    They may now, depending on how the war goes.

    Delusional.

    No idea what these points are other than just lies.

    They're a simple list of why the demands made by RF are fairly reasonable starting point foe negotoations. I wouldn't have expected "disempower and get rid of your Nazi commandos" to be something you'd oppose so vehemently and with seemingly made-up stories. I'm confident you were unaware of basically everything I've told you given the babytime propaganda stories you've been telling me. You're welcome!

    Russia has never had complete air superiority and definitely doesn't now.

    It absolutely does. UA doesn't even have airfields an F-16 could use anymore. UA has no real air presence at all, which is why the only UA things you hear about with any evidence are manpads. This is also why UA following NATO doctrine in "the counteroffensive" has been such a completr failure. No air support.

    Russia is targeting civilians constantly, like the largest mass graves in recent history were found in territories takes back from Russia.

    Unevidenced propaganda from the UA MoD.

    As for the equipment and manpower: Like Russia is rolling out museum pieces as tanks I have no idea where you are getting this info from.

    I know you don't. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the Russian military. Not that anyone needs to be, but it's very uncool to have such strong opinions in something you've never investigated. Feel free to educate yourself on its capabilities and what it's currently using to destroy ammo dumps and take down planes. Or, better, endeavor to feel okay having no opinion yet.

    They do have more manpower since they are conscripting like everyone.

    They have more manpower because they have 5X the population.

    UA is also doing forceful conscription and with much more dramatic coercion.

    None of that was in reference to NATO encirclement. As in it was already encircled 15 years ago and Ukraine wasn't joining NATO.

    ???

    The political leadership Nuland 'selected' was the leader of the opposition party that was going to be in power anyways. That's like some foreign politician saying they really like the reform party in Estonia to win after they already got the most votes.

    Sounds like you haven't heard the recording or you wouldn't be saying such nonsense.

    Can't find any ethnic cleansing done in Ukraine outside the Tatars by the Soviet union.

    Ah, you have to actually know what ethnic cleansing is and then know what has been happening in UA for the last decade and apply it yourself. The ways in which media outlets and politicians use certain terms is very selective and UA never really got the enemy/target treatment that brown or "bad" countries get.

    Anyways, you should research better. Here's a starting point: the National Druzhina.

    I'm guessing you mostly watch Russian state media since absolutely no one else thinks Russia could just take Ukraine if they wanted at this point. I'd suggest going to some other sources.

    You'd guess wrong and I think you're projecting, as you clearly have relies entirely on certain dominant narratives to give you opinions rathee than informing yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies it's quite relevant. Should start with that at home instead of invading your neighbour.

    Right sector has zero political power in Ukraine, Wagner is way more influencial.

    Also Azov batallion is mostly dead about a year ago. They died defending one of the locations that I think Ukraine took back during the previous counteroffensive. Any survivors were integrated into the actual military now, yea.

    Also if you want to compare numbers: highest estimate of Azov brigade was 2500, highest for Wagner was 50000. Wagner also got mostly incorporated into the Russian military.

    The only threat involved when joining NATO was the threat of Russia. Here in Estonia Russia constantly postures with military exercises and airspace violations, more before we joined NATO. Thankfully Russia seems to have run out of equipment to annoy us and this stopped completely halfway into it's war with Ukraine.

    If by NATO launching a war of aggression I can only assume you mean Serbia because there arent others. You know they were doing a genocide? Like full on Hitler level genocide. I find that like a pretty acceptable one.

    This is already an essay and arguing about points only Russian state media argues for seems like a loss no matter if you are right or wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    If you war goal is denazification and you are crawling with nazies it's quite relevant. Should start with that at home instead of invading your neighbour.

    You're not listening. I've already told you, explicitly, twice why RF is making that demand, and neither time was it, "well they just don't like Nazis".

    Right sector has zero political power in Ukraine, Wagner is way more influencial.

    Right sector and its offshoots are very powerful in the military and the military is calling a lot of the shots.

    Also, have you noticed how hard it is to find pictures of UA soldiers without either a Wolfangel or a Right Sector reference? Probably not because I am not convinced you read anything about this topic, but.. it's surprisingly difficult.

    And again, it doesn't matter if Russia did it too or does it more or whatever impetus is making you try to find these facile gotcha moments. I'm not the Russian state and I don't care if a nation-state are hypocrites in rhetoric or whatever (though RF didn't incorporate a Nazi regiment into their armed forces, so there's that).

    In terms of negotiation demands being reasonable, all that matters is whether the material ask is directly addressing the grievance and would support peace. This does both.

    Also Azov batallion is mostly dead about a year ago. They died defending one of the locations that I think Ukraine took back during the previous counteroffensive.

    Azov was significantly weakened in Mariupol and UA didn't retake that city. They still have a large presence, as an official part of the UA armed forces, in Lviv, Kyiv, Odessa, and distributed near the front. They still appear in an inordinate number of press photos and stories, which speaks to their privileged status.

    Any survivors were integrated into the actual military now, yea.

    You got the order wrong.

    The only threat involved when joining NATO was the threat of Russia. Here in Estonia Russia constantly postures with military exercises and airspace violations, more before we joined NATO.

    Given your comfort with saying things you don't know, I won't take your word for it on the exact frequency of military exercises. But I will point out that NATO itself has carried out more and greater aggressions, and ceased to have any ostensible purpose after the fall of the USSR. Mask off, it continued under its actual goal of furthering the interests of US imperialism, which Baltic countries happily oblige.

    If by NATO launching a war of aggression I can only assume you mean Serbia because there arent others.

    Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya are the most notable.

    You know they were doing a genocide? Like full on Hitler level genocide. I find that like a pretty acceptable one.

    This comparison trivializes the holocaust, which us not out of character for a NATO fan from the Baltics. In addition, this is again a piece of propaganda, a thin pretense for the actual goal of Balkanizing Yugoslavia. The NATO bombings were brutal and targeted civilian infrastructure.

    This is already an essay and arguing about points only Russian state media argues for seems like a loss no matter if you are right or wrong.

    You have been wrong about nearly everything you've said, even just simple facts. Now you want an excuse to leave rather than just doing it - ah, my information is just "Russian" (nearly everything I've said comes from Western and Ukrainian sources).

    How pitiful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Like half your points are either insane or just provably wrong and there's an essay for each point. Going over each one separately only to find out the only source is Russian state media is more than a little demotivating, especially on my phone, when arguing with people like you.

    Like the NATO offensive war part: the only one that would be an offensive war is the Serbian one and all the others listed are definitely not offensive wars initiated by NATO.

    And then there's the insane claims like Russia could win if they just wanted to, Russia has total air superiority since the start of the war, Ukraine military is run by nazies, NATO members join by being threatened by NATO. There are probably others I'm forgetting. The only people saying something that batshit is Russian state media and their strategy has been to overwhelm you with bullshit to debunk so either you are get all your bullshit there or you are a professional and I'm not going to waste my time with playing whack the Russian propaganda.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Like half your points are either insane or just provably wrong and there's an essay for each point.

    Interesting that you proved none of them wrong and just said made-up nonsense in response then, isn't it?

    Going over each one separately only to find out the only source is Russian state media is more than a little demotivating, especially on my phone, when arguing with people like you.

    And now you're just lying. So pitiful.

    Like the NATO offensive war part: the only one that would be an offensive war is the Serbian one and all the others listed are definitely not offensive wars initiated by NATO.

    You are 100% incorrect and I invite you to spend literally any amount of time learning about NATO's involvement in both Libya and Afghanistan. If you were a student I'd having a talk with your parents because you keep making things up rather than reading and learning.

    Maybe you don't know how to find information? Put the words "Libya" "NATO" and "bomb", read the results, ask yourself if NATO was defending lol.

    And then there's the insane claims like Russia could win if they just wanted to

    Yes obviously. Only gullible people think otherwise. Military folks expected RF to immediately curbstomp Ukraine because they thought RF would use the tactics of, dare I say, NATO countries and just bomb everything war crimes style. RF chose a very different tactic. I know you don't know why they did that, but you should do yourself a favor and read about it.

    Russia has total air superiority since the start of the war

    A basic fact. RF bombed UA airfields right off the bat and UA has had very little air presence while RF does basically whatever it wants outside of manpad resustence. You are free to go spend any amount of time learning these basic facts.

    Ukraine military is run by nazies

    Actually I didn't say that, though you csn tell the military is run by people in that neighborhood based on their statements. Remember when the UA MoD endorsed calling Chechens orcs and dipping bullets in lard? Of course you don't, you haven't paid attention. But you are free to review the extent to which Nazis have been incorporated into UA's military both formally and informally.

    NATO members join by being threatened by NATO.

    I didn't say that either. In UA's case it was less a threat than a coup, though UA isn't joining NATO soon anyways.

    There are probably others I'm forgetting. The only people saying something that batshit is Russian state media and their strategy has been to overwhelm you with bullshit to debunk so either you are get all your bullshit there or you are a professional and I'm not going to waste my time with playing whack the Russian propaganda.

    And now we return to your habit of, "everything I don't know is Russian propaganda". Like I said before, my sources are Western and Ukrainian. At no point in this conversation have you asked a question, sought information, or demonstrated knowledge of anything I'm talking about. But you have repeated some confused poorly-remembered talking points and seem to be very comfortable with lying when you don't know something.

    Work on that, buddy. I don't think I should have to tell you that lying is bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    This comparison trivializes the holocaust, which us not out of character for a NATO fan from the Baltics. In addition, this is again a piece of propaganda, a thin pretense for the actual goal of Balkanizing Yugoslavia. The NATO bombings were brutal and targeted civilian infrastructure

    With depleted uranium bombs, no less!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent