this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
411 points (90.4% liked)

World News

31475 readers
1092 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
411
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 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
782 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
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (14 children)

Nobody is offering Ukraine nukes, that's what the Budapest memorandum was all about, knock it off.

Cuba had its revolution and had its own arsenal provided by the USSR and has survived everything the US threw at it so far and Ukraine will survive russia too, but a moat would be handy :)

[–] [email protected] 45 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (12 children)

and has survived everything the US threw at it so far

The point being the US threw a lot of shit at it because of course the US wouldn’t tolerate those missiles being there, and Russia won’t tolerate NATO being in Ukraine.

If China made a defensive alliance with Mexico that included a military base in Tijuana, Mexico would suddenly be in need of some democracy and freedom.

Continuing to deny this basic reality means your position isn’t connected to reality.

Peace requires a sustainable security situation for Russia not just for Ukraine and for Russia that means no NATO since NATO is hostile to Russia. It’s clear and denying this is just putting your head in the sand.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (11 children)

Yes, but the point is with Cuba, missiles were removed, peace deal was reached.

Does the US have to place nukes in Ukraine so that by removing them russia will stop attacking it?

But by all means, if Trump starts threatening Mexico with some bullshit invasion to clean out the cartels, they should by all means ask China and anyone else to help out, sure! That's how it works in a bipolar world (there is no multipolar world, russia's empire is gone and China+US will make sure it never returns)

NATO is not hostile to russia, NATO prevents russia from invading its western neighbours, which is obviously a bummer to russia.

The sustainable security solution is: russia respects borders and other countries' sovereignty. The end.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yes, but the point is with Cuba, missiles were removed, peace deal was reached.

Yeah so the obvious conclusion is that peace in Cuba required satisfying the US’s demand to not have a Soviet military presence there.

Likewise peace in Ukraine requires not having a NATO military presence there.

Pretending that NATO isn’t hostile to Russia is also simply disconnected from reality. You need to connect your world view to reality.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Also we have been punishing Cuba with an embargo which has crippled their economy ever since just because we can.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Well, the weapons are still in Cuba, thank god :) and Cuba has an air force, which I suppose was given/sold to Cuba by the USSR/China, so maybe the US can also give some F16 to Ukraine. The USSR also sent planes and soviet crews to fight the Americans in Vietnam, so there is precedent for all that.

NATO is hostile to russia's imperial ambitions and so are all of its neighbours.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

What are you talking about? The Cuban missile crisis was resolved by the missiles being removed and the soviet military presence ended in Cuba.

You’re factually wrong when you seem to say the soviet missiles are still there. They were removed.

The US’s security interests demanded they were removed from the nearby Cuba, and US missiles that threatened the USSR were removed from Turkey.

Peace was achieved by withdrawing the military threat from each others borders.

Likewise peace in Ukraine can only be achieved if Russia doesn’t feel threatened by a NATO presence there.

It’s easy to understand.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes at one point Putin sought to join NATO and the idea didn’t gain traction.

I don’t understand how you feel this helps your argument.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago

Yeah, Putin wanted in but NATO said no.... because the purpose of NATO is to subjugate and pillage Russia.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=m7MZs-QdrFI

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago

Well, the weapons are still in Cuba

Cuba still has weapons at all, but the crisis was over the nuclear missiles, which were removed. It's a very direct comparison here.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)