“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

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why are the yanks pussy-footing around? They're usually much more hawkish.

Because they're using Ukrainians to grind down the Russian military, and economy, by attrition. The goal isn't to "win", the goal is to destabilize Russia. Ukrainians are just ammunition. The longer the war drags on, the more costly it is for Russia.

The reason is that the US are shit-scared about Russia thinking the US is trying to invade by proxy or something.

Russia already thinks that. That's what turned the civil war in Ukraine in to a proxy war between NATO and Russia.

Have a look at the Baltic states

Okay, so? I could match that if I flipped over my couch and counted the loose change. All of the baltics together add up to one medium-large urban area.

It's the US which has gazillions of Abrams sitting around doing nothing but collecting dust and is not shipping them over, not Europe.

That would be very expensive, and I'm not even sure the US has the logistical capacity for it. Plus seeing Abrams burned out by modern ATGMs would seriously harm the US's reputation for military invincibility. And, again, they're primarily concerned that Russia loses. Ukraine winning would be a nice bonus, but it's not the chief goal.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the civil war in Ukraine

You have a very active imagination.

Okay, so? I could match that if I flipped over my couch and counted the loose change. All of the baltics together add up to one medium-large urban area.

Look, it's that Seppo exceptionalism again.

That would be very expensive, and I’m not even sure the US has the logistical capacity for it.

The US only has those Abrams because it's cheaper to produce them than shut down the production line for a couple of years and then start it up again. Realistically speaking much of what the US sends should be valued at negative monetary value as Ukraine taking it means the US doesn't have to pay to dispose of it.

[–] MoreAmphibians@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

the civil war in Ukraine

You have a very active imagination.

Look up what was happening in Ukraine from 2014-2022. I know the media always refers to the people living there as Russian-backed separatists but they are in fact Ukrainians.

The US only has those Abrams because it's cheaper to produce them than shut down the production line for a couple of years and then start it up again. Realistically speaking much of what the US sends should be valued at negative monetary value as Ukraine taking it means the US doesn't have to pay to dispose of it.

So why hasn't the US sent 200-300 tanks? Why did the US demand that Ukraine launch a counteroffensive with insufficient tanks and air support? Why is the US trickling in just enough equipment to prolong the conflict as much as possible without giving Ukraine everything it could possibly need to win. Why is US propaganda so different from the actions the US is actually taking?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I know the media always refers to the people living there as Russian-backed separatists but they are in fact Ukrainians.

Force-recruited to fight on frontlines with Mosin Nagants or, alternatively, Wagner green men.

So why hasn’t the US sent 200-300 tanks?

Because they're chicken and don't understand Russia. Russia sees such hesitance as weakness and reason to continue on, as evidence that the US isn't really in it for the long run. And, I mean, they're not wrong in that regard proper commitment looks quite differently.

Why did the US demand that Ukraine launch a counteroffensive with insufficient tanks and air support?

When did the US demand such a thing? Ukraine has plenty of reason and grit and will to decide that on their own. Oh and there's a suitable number of tanks for what Ukraine is doing (they're not stupid and don't overcommit), the issue indeed is lack of air superiority, all that fancy NATO hardware is supposed to be used with NATO doctrine which involves throwing air superiority at the enemy until the ground frontline is the enemy's whole territory. But Ukraine is making the best out of the situation and picking off positions NATO would pick off from the air with various artillery systems, both medium and long range. And they're very good at it, which shouldn't really surprise anyone as that's good ole soviet doctrine and Ukraine always was the core force in the red army anyways.

Why is the US trickling in just enough equipment to prolong the conflict as much as possible without giving Ukraine everything it could possibly need to win.

Because they're a bunch of chickens who don't understand Russia. Alternatively, with some conspiratorial thinking, they want to prolong the war -- I frankly doubt it, never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. But that's irrelevant, in any case: Because that should be reason for you to demand that more weapons be shipped, not less.

Why is US propaganda so different from the actions the US is actually taking?

I wouldn't know I don't follow US media way too much of a partisan clown show anyway.