“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

[–] legion02@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh, we're not in there for a couple reasons and they all make sense. It would preclude NATO from ever entering because of the non-aggression portion of the agreement, and it would put Russia in a corner where they have to either admit defeat (which putin won't do) or go nuclear which is bad for everyone but especially bad for Ukraine.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The article in the OP is explicitly talking about US involvement. The US and NATO are 'in there'. If NATO isn't in Ukraine, it was hardly ever anywhere.

Arguing that NATO isn't involved seems to be either disingenuous or naive. It accepts NATO's PR at face value and in opposition to the practical reality. NATO/the US tends not announce it's clandestine work in the tabloids or the broadsheets, especially as it happens but it does admit it sometimes, if you know what you're looking for. In the case of Ukraine, it's not even hidden. They've been bragging about how much weaponry they've been sending and how much they've been involved in training and instructing Ukrainians how to fight.

Was the US involved when it trained and funded Saddam, Bin Laden, or the Contras? Of course it was. Ukraine is another example of how the US gets involved without 'getting it's hands dirty'; although I've yet to meet anyone IRL who doesn't think the US has the bloodiest, grimiest hands of all. The only question is whether people think it's a good thing or a bad thing. The fact of it is not open to dispute.

I'll struggle to accept any argument that splits hairs over what counts as involvement, I'm afraid. It boils down to semantics without addressing the crux of the issue.

I'm also struggling to see why more visible NATO/US involvement would require Russia to admit defeat until it's been defeated. Unless you're implying that NATO would wipe the floor with Russia. That doesn't seem right for two reasons:

The best minds and the resources of NATO have been demonstrably unable to stop Russia so far and
If Russia looks like losing, it has the nuclear option and shit gets real messy real quick and it's lose-lose for everyone

[–] legion02@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

3rd party involvement and direct engagement are two very different things. The non-aggression agreement, the one that protects and constrains nato members, only cares about engagement, training and arms are a-ok. What member states agreed to is concrete and well defined, not whatever amorphous definition you're going by here.

[–] kbotc@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The “loose definition” redtea came up with is bonkers.

Additionally, as you say, words have meanings. When people criticise NATO it is as a stand-in for the imperialist world order. It includes the IMF, World Bank, the WTO, the 'international' courts and rules, and all their elements and capitalist lackeys. You're making a semantic argument, which misses the crucial point: that NATO and its member states are concerned only with the wealth and power of their bourgeoisie, regardless of Russia.

I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have an agenda, that we can't have world peace until there are no more imperialists, which includes and is often, in ordinary language, represented by NATO. If you interpret that as support for Russia, there's not much left for us to discuss.

The nutbag’s definition of NATO includes Russia.