414

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
[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 62 points 1 year ago

These people are monsters, and the idiot liberals that have happily jumped on their barbarous murder machine are too.

You sent tens of thousands of people to die in a futile meatgrinder while acting like you're good people """helping""" those you were killing. In reality what was happening was that you didn't care about what happened to those people as long as it harmed some russians.

The consequences of decades of anti-russian racism all came to a head in this war, with liberals LOVING the opportunity to be openly racist pieces of shit.

All excused by what? Some fucking lines on a map? I don't give a shit about lines on a map, I care about the tens of thousands of people's lives wasted on this shit, both ukrainian and russian.

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago

Who invaded who? Who started shelling who?

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't give a fuck mate. The result of the war is that one group of bourgeoisie exploit people, or another group of bourgeoisie exploit people. Neither outcome is worth any lives to me. No war but class war.

You are a pro war bloodthirsty psychopath willing to expend as many lives as necessary as long as it empowers the particular group of billionaires that you cheerlead for instead of some other group of them.

And it was Ukraine that was shelling Donetsk and Luhansk actually. Don't make me get the OSCE shelling maps out.

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

No political theory. No ad hominem attacks. Who start shooting first?

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 38 points 1 year ago

She answered in the last paragraph

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What the fuck do you not understand? I do not care. It does not matter to me who starts a war when both sides are bourgeoisie. And it does not fucking matter to me who wins them. I will not cheerlead either side of a bourgeoise war. I am not a psychotic nationalist. I am an internationalist.

Fucking trying to remove politics from a war is utterly deranged.

[-] Frank@hexbear.net 20 points 1 year ago

Well, Ukraine. Or, rather, Right-wing nationalist Galacians who trapped dozens of Ukrainian union members who were the wrong kind of Ukrainian in a building them threw firebombs in until all the Ukrianians in the building burned to death.

Then the nationalist Galacians attacked the legitimate president, who had considerable support in eastern Ukraine.

Then the coup Rada started sending Nazi death squads in to Donbas, and shelled Donbass with artillery for like eight years.

Then the UA military staged a massive build up to invade Donbas with... uh... questionable intentions towards the Russian speaking Ukrainian population, and at that point Russia invaded.

So.

[-] Grimble@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No political theory

"Go ahead and duel me, just take off your clothes first and drop your weapon"

[-] Frank@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago

And it doesn't even work bc afaik the first shots in the civil war were when the nationalists trapped all those Ukrainians in the union building and burned them all to death.

[-] Farman@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

The opposite of the lady barnard song.

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

As always fidel-salute to one of our finest posters

[-] radiofreeval@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

We love our posters

[-] Farman@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago

The us invaded ukraine and started shelling donbas.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 2 points 1 year ago

IQ so low scientists are studying its applications for cooling nuclear fusion reactors

[-] Frank@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

This is too simplistic. Just stop. That's not how geopolitics works. The lines on the map aren't real and don't mean anything. Christ Liberals and their profound inability to understand the nature of power.

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

I'm a liberal? "Liberal" is just a word and all words are made up. They don't mean anything.

[-] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 year ago

If words have no meaning, then how are you communicating with people in this comment section right now?

[-] tetrabrick@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago

Woah, you just justified that any conversation doesn't mean anything,congrats

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

And they just justified any invasion by declaring that boarders are imaginary, so they didn't matter. Guess what? Both words and boarders are imaginary, but they still matter.

[-] rikudou@lemmings.world 9 points 1 year ago

Russia can fucking leave Ukraine any time. And suddenly all the "lives wasted on this shit" are no longer wasted.

[-] ram@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago

What would be a solution to this conflict?

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ceasefire agreement and a return to negotiations would be a start. They had already agreed to a deal when Boris Johnson showed up over a year ago though, and then Ukraine went back on it after his unscheduled visit. My assumption is that this agreement would have preserved Donetsk and Luhansk as either independent countries or as autonomously governed regions of Ukraine, that's changed now with the law making them part of Russia and I'm not entirely sure whether that's something Putin even has the power to change without a vote by those respective regions or the State Duma (unsure what mechanism might exist).

Either way there is no military capability to take them back by force as demonstrated by the complete failure of the counteroffensive, Ukraine will either lose them by force with a massive pile of bodies lost on both sides, or not. This is the reality of the situation. I care about avoiding the pile of bodies one way or another.

[-] Frank@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

Well, the EU could have entered negotiations in good faith with Russia when all this started. The US could have not supported the Maidan coup. The coup Rada could have not declared their intent to destroy the culture and language of Russian speaking Ukrainians as their literal first act after assuming power. They could have granted the DPR and LPR the autonomy within Ukraine and protection of their language (and, frankly, ethnicity) that was initially requested. the EU could have honored Minsk and Minsk II. They could have negotiated in good faith at any point in this entire process. They could stop goading Ukrainians in to Russian defensive lines they have no chance of defeating to prolong the war. They could have allowed Ukraine to engage in attempts to negotiate a peace at any point in this process. They could have supported Zelensky's peace platform when he was elected.

There's no real solution now. Until Russia can no longer sustain it's operations or NATO does, this is going to keep going until Ukraine runs out of Ukrainians to send to their deaths.

[-] Farman@hexbear.net -1 points 1 year ago

At this point any solution that does not end in the complete collapse of nato is very bad for the third world. Because it shows the power the west has to arbitrarily apply embargoes. Even nuclear armagedon wold be betrer than that. If you think the yanks are unhinged now they ill be much more rabid after russia capitulates. So the only solution is to make trenches and fire artillery shells until the ukranians run out of amunitio or men.

[-] radiofreeval@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Even nuclear armagedon wold be betrer than that.

That's a take.

[-] Farman@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago
[-] radiofreeval@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Nuclear war would be so much worse for the global south then embargoes.

I have better takes.

[-] Farman@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Not really i live thousands of miles away from were the nukes will be falling. We are going to be fine. There is going to be some problems depending on how much sunligth is bloked and trade disruption for a while but we will be rid of the dane so long term we are going to be beyter of than if current trends continue. And much better of than if the us keeps acting like a rabid dog.

[-] radiofreeval@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

i live thousands of miles away from were the nukes will be falling. We are going to be fine. There is going to be some problems depending on how much sunligth is bloked

Some problems? The ash and clouds alone can destroy countries agriculture. Not to mention just how far fallout can spread. Full scale nuclear war would be the end of humanity. Not civilization, not the West, but our species would go extinct.

[-] Farman@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

No it wont. Its practically imposible to whipe out our species we need orders of magnitude more nukes than what we have to do that. Fallout is not that problematic.

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

World News

32439 readers
792 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS