Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

ā€œPeople think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldnā€™t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we havenā€™t lost a single American in this war,ā€ McConnell said. ā€œMost of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So itā€™s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.ā€

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063

    • Gsus4@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      Ā·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, you spend blood and treasure to conquer land and then brag about it in history books.

      You impose your rule on that land and your peasants rejoice at your statesmanship and feel blessed to join such a great nation, or elseā€¦

      • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        Ā·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My point is that nobody doing that would be doing it for free. This applies the apologia for all other empires to Russia. I.e. that empire builders do it sometimes by accident but always for benevolent reasons. Thatā€™s incorrect. Empires are built by extracting wealth and to extract wealth.

        I think you agree with this as Iā€™m reading your second paragraph as sarcasm. If you do agree, then itā€™s not possible to conclude that Russia will lose money. It may do, if it loses, although even that is questionable. If it wins, it will gain wealth. Or itā€™s capitalists will do so. Thereā€™s a contradiction between your two paragraphs.

        If Russiaā€™s motivations are imperialistic (I havenā€™t seen evidence for that, myself, but it depends on oneā€™s definition of imperialism), there would be no point if it cost more money to achieve than would be recouped after. Until itā€™s over, itā€™s not possible to say that itā€™s already lost money. Itā€™s costly, but thatā€™s different, and doesnā€™t answer, ā€˜Costly for whom?ā€™

        (Please donā€™t misunderstand me ā€“ Iā€™m not saying that Russia will not exploit whatever parts of Ukraine it keeps hold of. Itā€™s capitalist. Of course it will. Iā€™m suggesting that this war doesnā€™t amount to a land grab simpliciter.)

        One counter to this is that the US is spending money to ensure that Russia does lose money. Time will tell whether Iā€™m right or wrong but I think this drastically overestimates the strength of the US. It doesnā€™t have an industrial base (except in vassal and puppet states). So it cannot match Russiaā€™s military output.

        And the industries the US does possess are governed by the logic of finance capital not industrial capital. Money spent does not indicate how much has been bought. $10bn spent on weapons, for instance, doesnā€™t mean you get $10bn worth of weapons by the time you factor in all the sales teams, admin, embezzlement, and middle managers, etc.

        The US seems incapable of providing Ukraine with the arms that the Ukrainian military is asking for. Itā€™s publications have started to admit this more and more. Due to the above-mentioned logics, the US doesnā€™t have the intellectual-ideological or industrial capacity to ramp up manufacturing. The US certainly has people bright enough to figure it out but theyā€™re inconsequential in the face of a military-industrial complex designed to make as much money as possible rather than to ā€˜winā€™ wars.

        • kbotc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          Oh look, the ā€œNATO is anything I donā€™t likeā€ Russian apologist tankie guy is back at pulling out fake shit out of their ass.

          The US is the second largest manufacturer on the planet, and insources its military production.

          Ukraine is complaining that we canā€™t send them Soviet era military structure compatible weaponry. The US had largely phased out ā€œdig a trench and use artillery to make a breakthroughā€ back in the late 80s, because we could attain air superiority against Soviet tech.

          • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            I see youā€™re coming at me with another semantic argument. This one based on the notion that by ā€˜doesnā€™t have an industrial baseā€™ I can only mean ā€˜doesnā€™t have any industrial baseā€™. Thatā€™s a rather strange reading as it assumes I have zero grasp of logic. The existence of the tiniest fragment of industry would render my argument incorrect. Itā€™s acting in bad faith to assume I meant that.

            Which leaves the search for an alternative interpretation. Such as the US doesnā€™t have a sufficient industrial base to achieve its goals militarily in the Ukraine. The figures are hard to come by as there are lots of definitional issues. Still, trade publications and Congress are worried.

            ā€œU.S. policies and financial investments are not currently oriented to support a defense ecosystem built for peer conflict,ā€ the report read. ā€œThis was a troubling truth during the last 20 years of asymmetric conflict against non-state actors. In the return of great power competition, this gap is an unsustainable indictment.ā€

            US manufacturing can be as large as it likes but if it canā€™t join up itā€™s thinking and produce what fighters on the front line need, it doesnā€™t count for much. Itā€™s DIB is not set up for wars against industrialised countries that are determined to fight back. It doesnā€™t matter what weapons and compatible ammunition the US does produce, either, if it isnā€™t working to supply them to the people doing the fighting and isnā€™t willing to use them itself for (rightly) being at least a little bit reluctant to start a nuclear third world war.

            Iā€™m a little skeptical of the extent of the claims about the weaknesses of the DIB and more so of the framing of the solution. The details are coming from people who want to increase the military budget (without otherwise wanting to change the underlying political economic system). Still, there does seem to be some movement to use the Ukraine war to justify costly improvements to the US DIB.

            Will the changes come? And will they come in time to defeat Russia in Ukraine within a reasonable time frame? The plan will struggle against the existing contradictions unless thereā€™s a change in logic, which doesnā€™t seem to be on the cards. So itā€™s unlikely to be a complete success even if some fixes are implemented.

            Itā€™s irrelevant whether you accept what Iā€™m saying. Iā€™m only summarising what the US military is saying. This is public information. If youā€™re interested, search for ā€˜us defense industrial baseā€™. What Iā€™ve explained is such a hot topic, you donā€™t even need to add e.g. ā€˜problemsā€™ to the search terms for articles about the problems to be returned.

            • kbotc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              Ā·
              1 year ago

              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 ā€˜internationalā€™ courts and rules, and all their elements and capitalist lackeys. Youā€™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.

              Iā€™m not trying to hide the fact that I have an agenda, that we canā€™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, thereā€™s not much left for us to discuss.

              Your position literally is the NATO is all the imperial capitalists in the world, and somehow Russia is not involved in either of those definitions and deserves to be apologized for. Itā€™s internally inconsistent and is shill behavior.

              You have an agenda, and itā€™s pro imperialist, as long as the imperialist is not the US. Congrats; If you were in the US, youā€™re dumb enough that youā€™d be shilling for Trump because ā€œHeā€™s gonna drain the swamp!ā€

            • kbotc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              Ā·
              1 year ago

              Iā€™m only summarising what the US military is saying.

              Youā€™re only summarizing what the US Military Industrial Complex is saying, which isnā€™t the US Military. National Defense Industrial Association != US Military, again going back to the ā€œNATO is whatever I define it asā€ that you keep insisting.

              Mark Milley is the mouthpiece of the US Military as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and heā€™s not mincing words: Russia will lose militarily in Ukraine. It will take time and blood, but the US is responsible for 34% of the worldā€™s military industrial output and claiming

              Itā€™s DIB is not set up for wars against industrialised countries that are determined to fight back.

              Is not reality. Weā€™ve only faced off once, and the Battle of Khasham did not go well for the ā€œindustrialized country determined to fight backā€