“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

[–] dsmk@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've watched the lecture. He makes some good points, but there are also some flaws with his positions. I recommend doing a quick "googling" for articles with counter points.

Russia is not governed by amateurs that are easily baited into invading a country. They decided to force Ukraine to align with them and when that didn't work, they decided to invade in 2014. The decision and responsibility is theirs.

It's a bit like blaming the Soviet Union or China for the Vietnam war because they were "expanding" communism or something like that. It makes no sense.

[–] s0ykaf@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

i'm aware of the counter points

Russia is not governed by amateurs that are easily baited into invading a country

this was a bit surprising to read because if i spend 10 minutes in reddit i'll leave thinking russians are governed by absolutely inept people who can't do anything right and always fall for the silliest of cebolinha do pix zelensky's schemes

and it wasn't a "bait", that's a silly way of looking at it; in the neo-realist view it makes perfect sense that russia would see ukraine as an existential threat after the nato mistake was made, and that war would become inevitable if things escalated - as mearsheimer predicted more than a decade ago in other discussions

ukraine, in practical terms, has been disputed territory in terms of political influence since the fall of the ussr. but before the threat of nato, and the repeated breaking of the non-expansion promise, there was no sign that an invasion like this would ever happen

It's a bit like blaming the Soviet Union or China for the Vietnam war because they were "expanding" communism or something like that. It makes no sense.

now you're being disingenuous, vietnam doesn't share a literal border with america. we should be able to blame the soviets for a mexican war if they attempted to bring mexico into a military alliance in the 80s or something, and the US would be absolutely right to see said alliance as an existential threat because it would be

it's ok to think that russia deserves an existential threat for whatever reason, such as, i don't know, "putin bad" (though of course i wouldn't say he's as bad as any american president, at least he has never been such for my country). but denying that russia's change into a bellicose attitude was predictable and avoidable by sane geopolitics is just denying reality at this point

[–] dsmk@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

I don't know what reddit is saying about Russia, but the "poor Russia, couldn't help themselves and had to invade" doesn't convince me. They made a calculated move which didn't go as well as they expected. It happens sometimes.

NATO had an "open-door" policy from the start. Russia knows this, so unless we really think everyone over there is really dumb, they knew that NATO's "sure, maybe we'll let you in sometime in the future" meant little. Ukraine was trying to join since the early 2000's and the reply was always the same... Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO in 2014, like zero chance. I recommend reading about the state of their forces, corruption, etc, at the time. What changed was that Yanukovych was going to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, something that most of Ukraine supported (if we're to trust polls and look at the reaction when he unexpectedly changed his mind) while Russia wanted Ukraine to do the same agreement with them instead.

The existential threat... I don't know. Do you really think that their "existential threat" is now higher that Finland joined NATO (because of Russia's actions)? Estonia is fine, but Ukraine is makes that "existential threat" much, much worse? And who the hell is going to start a war in Russia when they have capacity to reply to normal attacks and will, without a doubt, use their nukes if invaded? Does NATO now have a death wish or something like that?

I keep reading about that non expansion promise... again, I guess you all think Russians are dumb and got verbal assurances thinking that it's the same as having them in writing. In any case, Russia doesn't own eastern Europe, many countries have made clear they don't want to be under their thumb or be part of their country. If Russia doesn't like this, well, though luck. A reality check would also help here... they're not the USSR.

The Vietnam example wasn't a good one, but my point is that if we start finding excuses to justify wars, well, we can, but it never ends and it's never our fault.

The US has some history with Cuba... but the only time when there was a really serious reaction wasn't when Castro became friends with the Soviet Union... it was when nukes were deployed in Cuba (partially their fault, after deploying theirs in Turkey). Russia invaded Ukraine because they were winking at the EU and NATO... like, they didn't even kiss!

I know why they invaded, but I also believe in taking responsibility for one's actions. We can talk about moral responsibility, but at the end of the day Russia invaded Ukraine and therefore they are responsible for the war they started.