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

  • Gsus4@feddit.nl
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    russia can end this whenever they want by restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, if they think the US is benefiting so much from it at their expense. The US is just making it much harder for russia to reach its maximalist goals: to conquer Ukraine. One of those is a war crime, the other one is supporting international law.

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        International law is when russia does not annex Crimea because of the unfavourable internal affairs of its neighbour. You know, your power ends at "these" borders and from there to here you can't threaten the Ukrainian President.

          • Gsus4@feddit.nl
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Yea, well, did you hear about how the President escaped and the Parliament voted to destitute him. And when you invade Crimea to do a mock referendum, that's awesome international law. Not even Iran and China recognize the annexation of Crimea, because you can't invade a country and referendum an annexation unilaterally.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]
              ·
              11 months ago

              Most of the people living in Crimea work for the Russian Black Sea Fleet you dork. They didn't have to invade Crimea, they already had a huge military instalation there. And no one cares about international law, least of all NATO.

              Also Crimea has been trying to get autonomy or leave Ukraine for thirty years.

    • Pili@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      11 months ago

      Alright but what would guarantee Russia's safety after they do that? It's obviously not in their interest. What they want is to negotiate a peace treaty, which is why they are holding their defense line so strongly until their opponents are exhausted.

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        ·
        11 months ago

        What I heard were rumors that the "UN" could sort of hold Ukraine's occupied territories "in escrow" as a DMZ buffer, but it's not a final solution (we know how these handovers have turned sour in the past), because eventually you'd have to divide it, or create a new country...the essential is that russia does not get rewarded for its aggression with territory to brag about in the history books and that there is no chance that any native pro-russian Ukrainian in the buffer zone suffers reprisals...

        • silent_water [she/her]
          ·
          11 months ago

          those territories are independent republics that have been embroiled in a civil war with Kyiv for 9 years. Ukraine's fascist factions within the military have been shelling those republics in violation of multiple peace treaties that have been signed over the past 9 years. securing the independence of those regions is Russia's entire pretext for invading - in response to requests for military aid from said republics.

          • Gsus4@feddit.nl
            ·
            11 months ago

            I could even imagine a scenario where if they had become independent republics, russia parked tanks there and said: "peace now", it could have worked, but Putin got greedy. Then to pile on the catastrophic stubbornness, russia annexed parts of them, plus parts of 2 other oblasts in mock referendums that nobody recognizes. There is no defense, it's a land grab and a clumsy one at that.

            • silent_water [she/her]
              ·
              11 months ago

              can you see how if you were living in those cities and multiple peace treaties were violated, that you might prefer joining the larger power that speaks your language to remaining at the mercy of death squads that howl for your blood?

              • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                If you speak russian and you want to move to russia and you like daddy putin's policies, you always could join Russia: they'll give you a passport and welcome you with open arms, nobody is stopping you, they have plenty of space and can use the manpower.

                • silent_water [she/her]
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  why is "leave the place you and yours have lived for countless generations" a preferable option to you? would you see it the same way if this were the choice offered to your city?

                  • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    That's a great thought process, instead of emigrating from Ireland to the UK, ask the UK to invade Ireland so you don't have to move and can live with your English buddies. Wtf. Respect borders, move if your country allegiance changes

                    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
                      ·
                      11 months ago

                      What are you even on, dude? There wasn't hard border between Russia and Ukraine for Ukraine's entire existence as a state until the destruction of the USSR. People should flee when their own country decides to kill them? That is actual, real, literal ethnic cleansing and/or genocide?

                      Are you seriously saying that all the Russian speaking Ukrainians should have fled Ukraine when the Rada started sending death squads in to the Donbass? Are you really saying that?:

                      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                        ·
                        11 months ago

                        it is, isn't it? That's what russian speakers are doing, this just keeps getting better and better.

                        • silent_water [she/her]
                          ·
                          11 months ago

                          it's literally the opposite. they're in the position of Northern Ireland, in this analogy.

                            • silent_water [she/her]
                              ·
                              11 months ago

                              it's a real conflict you knob. the actual history is exactly the opposite and it's a great fucking analogy that's going straight over your head.

                              • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                                ·
                                edit-2
                                11 months ago

                                Yes, but why cant some dude in Ireland call up his English friends to add bits of Ireland to Northern Ireland? The possibilities are endless without borders just the way putin likes. Or maybe Switzerland or Belgium can join France...I can just keep listing countries that speak the same language as their neighbour that could be invaded to "save the speakers". Hitler invaded Poland on that pretext too, it's super versatile.

                                • silent_water [she/her]
                                  ·
                                  11 months ago

                                  mate, the Brits literally colonized Ireland and the actual direction people want to go is towards Ireland. there was a real reuinfication conflict. posing a ahistorical hypothetical that's precisely the opposite of the actual lived reality is fucking hilarious. what you're saying effectively amounts to "if the Irish in Northern Ireland want to join Ireland so badly, why don't they simply move there", which is fucking insane and precisely the point I've been making for a half dozen comments.

                                  • Frank [he/him, he/him]
                                    ·
                                    11 months ago

                                    THis probably isn't worth it. Gsus is either taking the piss or not clever or knowledgeable enough to follow you.

                                  • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                                    ·
                                    edit-2
                                    11 months ago

                                    You can twist my careless example of a translinguistic border in every direction to represent what you want, apparently in this case you're making Ireland to be russia here, but I can say the UK represents russia...which is still different from:

                                    Ukraine was already independent in 1993 without DNRs+LPRs and there was a referendum which settled the matter according to russia too, only for russia to come back 20 years later for Crimea and then for the Donbas by force.

                                    If you want to be russian after 20 years of settled internationally recognized borders and peace, you can move there, because that's not how borders or international law work.

                                    • silent_water [she/her]
                                      ·
                                      11 months ago

                                      I'm pointing out the similarities with a group that shares language and culture with the parent nation wishing to rejoin the parent nation. those borders have also been "settled". and yet the only conscionable choice is to support the separarists. the other poster is right, you are too dense to understand history and its lessons.

                                    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
                                      ·
                                      11 months ago

                                      And, again, are you suggesting the Russian speaking population of Ukraine, who have lived their for at least decades, should have fled the country when the coup Rada declared their language illegal?

                                    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
                                      ·
                                      11 months ago

                                      Why do you think a nation, any nation, would give up a strategic port and major naval facility to it's enemies without a fight?

        • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]
          ·
          11 months ago

          The UN was absolutely useless at peacekeeping in Ukraine from 2014-2022. Why would they suddenly become competent now? Ukraine would just keep shelling those territories (now with cluster munitions) and would invade them if Russia pulled it's military back.

          And if you try and say that Ukraine wouldn't dare do that because it would be against "international law" I'll remind you that Ukraine had absolutely no problem violating the Minsk Agreements. Ukraine just kept violating those agreements by shelling the Donbas for 8 years without suffering any consequences until Russia invaded.

    • StalinwasaGryffindor [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      11 months ago

      Oh my god, nobody gives a fuck about international law. It’s a meaningless term used to sling attacks at your geopolitical enemies. Just look at Guantanamo bay, where Americans are torturing people that have never even faced a military tribunal for over two decades! In an illegal occupation of Cuban land!

        • StalinwasaGryffindor [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yes, the brutal hard truth is if your country is neighbor to a much more powerful country than you will be forced to make concessions to that country. Else you will get couped, invaded, have your leaders assisted or be put under crippling economic blockades. Russia sucks but any state in the world would do the same to prevent giving their enemies an easy point of invasion