McConnell on Ukraine proxy war: "We haven’t lost a single American in this war. Most of the money that we spend, is spent on replenishing weapons, so it’s actually employing people here."[paraphrased]

It's not inane, maybe I'm a cuck who likes to take it in the ass. Now what? How are you supposed to offend anyone with that? In what way is putin like me?

PS: I'm not trying to be hostile, btw, I just think it's filthy language that we absorb and then becomes mainstream and all of a sudden we're like "cuck this, that cuck that" and we already have enough of that around. :/

PPS: back again. I'm not trying to stop anyone swearing or to police speech, if you wanna say it, whatever. Swearing is a healthy practice that helps vent and we have plenty of shit, dick, fuck and assholes to go around, I just don't see how that is a good offense, does it help you vent to see putin be fucked in the ass? Maybe he likes it, lol (ew), it just gives me 4chan PTSD :)

Being homophobic is ok as long as it's a bit to own le tankies

Wtf where did you pull that from? Tankies like to cuck? Hahahaha. You have some good takes, so I can't block you, but I have no idea where this is coming from, lol

Thanks! Appreciate the in depth response

This is hilarious to read lol. Stop using words you don't know the meaning of.

You're right that this war is partially about the US attempting to test and modernize weapons, but the US spending more money on it's already bloated military isn't a 'win' for anybody except for neo-cons.

Literally no communist thinks Russia is still communist

Ask Ukrainians which version they prefer - US involvement or not.

Yeah there's just one little problem here fam: the US backed a coup there and installed pro-war neo-nazis in power, there was no question about it left to the Ukrainians.

The US has spent 30+ years shit stirring, dismantling Ukraine, running coups, and undermining Ukraine's relationships with it's closest neighbours. Now it's provoked a war and all gullible liberals can say is the same thing they said about the US contemporaneously with all its other wars.

The article in the OP demonstrates exactly what I and others like me have been saying from the start: the US is not involved to be the good guy, it has no moral high ground; it is only involved to make money, and no number of Ukrainian lives is too great a price to pay for US prosperity. The US is involved to steal as much Ukrainian wealth as possible.

It's not just the 'profit' from selling the weapons (which Ukraine will pay for, not the US, so there's no benevolence in it but self-interest). Every aid package is another tranche of the same kind of loans that the US has used to loot and privatise the country's assets for decades. The same thing the US does everywhere. The only difference now is the novelty of trying to physically destroy Russia's military at the same time.

It's a bit rich to say that I'm the one with a narrow minded view of geopolitics when you've reduced a 30+ year conflict to it's surface details. Events like this cannot be separated from the political economy or their historical context. It's clear that liberals still haven't learned to correct a flaw in their framework that was identified 150 years ago (source otherwise only indirectly relevant):

That in their appearance things often represent themselves in inverted form is pretty well known in every science except Political Economy.

Some people have dug beneath the appearance of things, whereas others accept them in their inverted form.

Do you honestly believe that? You honestly think that US aid has saved lives in Ukraine? Some surely has but the weapons? Ig it's not your family and friends in the cross hairs, your fields poisoned with depleted uranium, or your kids' cross country tracks littered with cluster munitions. You really think the country responsible for embargoes of medical supplies to Palestine, Yemen, and Cuba, to name a few, is sending aid to save lives?

Ukraine is another Kurdistan to the US. The only question is whether it will take the Ukrainians as long as it took the Kurds to learn that the US is nobody's friend.

The article in the OP is explicitly talking about US involvement. The US and NATO are 'in there'. If NATO isn't in Ukraine, it was hardly ever anywhere.

Arguing that NATO isn't involved seems to be either disingenuous or naive. It accepts NATO's PR at face value and in opposition to the practical reality. NATO/the US tends not announce it's clandestine work in the tabloids or the broadsheets, especially as it happens but it does admit it sometimes, if you know what you're looking for. In the case of Ukraine, it's not even hidden. They've been bragging about how much weaponry they've been sending and how much they've been involved in training and instructing Ukrainians how to fight.

Was the US involved when it trained and funded Saddam, Bin Laden, or the Contras? Of course it was. Ukraine is another example of how the US gets involved without 'getting it's hands dirty'; although I've yet to meet anyone IRL who doesn't think the US has the bloodiest, grimiest hands of all. The only question is whether people think it's a good thing or a bad thing. The fact of it is not open to dispute.

I'll struggle to accept any argument that splits hairs over what counts as involvement, I'm afraid. It boils down to semantics without addressing the crux of the issue.

I'm also struggling to see why more visible NATO/US involvement would require Russia to admit defeat until it's been defeated. Unless you're implying that NATO would wipe the floor with Russia. That doesn't seem right for two reasons:

1. The best minds and the resources of NATO have been demonstrably unable to stop Russia so far and
2. If Russia looks like losing, it has the nuclear option and shit gets real messy real quick and it's lose-lose for everyone

If Russia's aims are 'imperialistsic', is it losing money?