“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

[–] sarcasticsunrise@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whilst not suffering a series of mini-strokes on national television, Mitch is as always razor sharp and the epitome of giving zero fucks about any human lives/hides other than his own. May the Sweet Lord Above see fit to drown this nearly calcified ghoul in a bed of his own shit, like real soon. Tomorrow morning would be cool

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mitch may be crap, but here he is just trying to get ahead of Republicans who would rather leave Ukraine high and dry. He may give zero fucks about human lives but not as bad as the Russians who have no problem committing war crimes on a daily basis.

Fact is that for less than 3% of the DOD budget we get the result of the loss of over 50% of the military strength of one of our top geopolitical foes. Plus, it will take them at least a decade to rebuild it.

No one asked Russia to invade Ukraine and disrupt world order. Russia doesn't seem to want to negotiate. Why would you want Ukraine to give up?

[–] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

By all third party accounts the Russian military is stronger than when the invasion began.

Where you get a 50% reduction in strength must be from the most fevered of dreams. The Nazis could not overthrow Russia with millions of men and hundreds of thousands of vehicles.

You think it will be done with 3% of our budget? Honestly? We couldn’t do it with 100% of our budget. We’d have to go to a war economy and devote 60% or more of the gdp.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

By all third parties you must be excluding the institute of war and every western intelligence agency. That must be the reason you are pulling WWII tanks out of museums, emptying prisons for manpower, ect. Your BS may play well in your own country, comrade, but it's still BS.

[–] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Western intelligence agencies are party to the war…

Open a history book if you think beating Russia is easy. Dozens of leaders made the same mistake over and over.

The fact that you have to assume I’m Russian to believe this reveals your arrogance.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yes yes the mighty Russians and their 3 day war...

We're not living in history but in reality. The reality is that although Ukraine have less troops, they are battle hardened. Russia uses cannon fodder and officers who blow up if they don't fall out of a window.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah - Russia has and always had one tactic - "nas mnogo" aka "there's many of us". While it might have worked in the past where the amount of troops basically decided who will win, it doesn't work with modern weapons.

[–] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The Ukrainians vastly outnumbered the Russian forces in Ukraine at the beginning of this conflict. Easily 5 to 1.

That’s easily researchable and provable, spare me the sass.

Now it is roughly 1 to 1. You can see how that’s played out, with the Ukranian counter offensive accomplishing much less than expected.

Russias army started weak and is continuing to grow in strength, as they have in nearly every conflict they’ve been in over the last five centuries.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

5 to 1 you say? Since Russia is commonly acknowledged having encircled Ukraine with more than 100,000 troops before their invasion, that would mean little old Ukraine put 500,000 troops in the field. There are very few places that can put half a million troops in the field. China of course, if pressed. And of course NATO

Take your BS to someone foolish enough to believe it

[–] PosadistInevitablity@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296573/russia-ukraine-military-comparison/

Five seconds of googling you are a tiring sassy person

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Sigh....putting up with your nonsense

What I see here is Russia with 830,900 active soldiers, which seems about right. Ukraine, on the other hand, shows 200,000, which is a bit of a high number as I've seen half that. Putin didn't send his whole army at the outset thinking it would be a lot easier than it was. He has now. Ukraine didn't have the equipment for all of its army at the outset but they are closer now. No 5 to 1, sorry.

[–] ToxicDivinity@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

We're not living in history but in reality.

Is history not real?

[–] MoreAmphibians@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

institute of war

Do you mean the Institute for the Study of War? The one founded and run by Kimberly Kagan? She's the sister-in-law of Victoria Nuland who is the Acting Deputy Secretary of State.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1kjvOsXwAA1tVk?format=jpg&name=large