White House downplays CNN poll showing majority of Americans oppose more US aid for Ukraine | CNN Politics
edition.cnn.com
The White House on Wednesday downplayed CNN polling showing most Americans oppose Congress providing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia ahead of a reported administration request for more aid.

Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

“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

  • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    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
      0·
      1 year ago

      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 [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        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?