- cross-posted to:
- ukraine_war_news@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- ukraine_war_news@lemmygrad.ml
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
Do you agree there is a difference between “reasons” and “justifications”?
I think Russia’s reasons for invading are real and must acknowledged to end the war. I don’t think those reasons justify the war.
Get it?
“I think the US’s reasons for invading Iraq are real and must be acknowledged to end the war.”
Does that clarify what I’m talking about to you at all?
The US’s reasons for invading Iraq weren’t fucking real. They made it all up!
Does that clarify what I’m talking about to you at all?
Yes, and that’s exactly the point I was making about Russia’s reasons. The NATO already had troops in all of the Baltics following the invasion of Crimea. (Look up Operation Atlantic Resolve) Every single US troop there was already closer to Moscow than any potential Ukrainian base could ever possibly hope to be.
You’re skipping some parts of the history. Before Operation Atlantic Resolve, there was the illegal removal of the previous anti-NATO president and the installation of a pro-NATO president, and that was the trigger for the invasion of Crimea and the illegal referendum to annex the territory in the first place. If you care to look, there’s a pretty clear through-line of tit-for-tat that keeps happening.
If by illegally remove you mean he was passing laws that would have made him a defacto dictator which in turn triggered protests that he violently put down triggering massive protests causing him to flee then yes.
I mean literally, they removed him without following the constitutional process. They just kinda did it - hence, a coup.
He was literally voted out by their parlament by like 300 to 0 votes and the only country calling it a coup was Russia.
So? It was still an illegal move by their parliament - he wasn’t formally impeached. That’d be like the American House and Senate voting to remove the President without having impeachment proceedings. It doesn’t matter how overwhelming the majority is, the constitution is still supposed to be a legal document that hast to be followed.
Also iirc the reason there were 0 votes against is because 170 abstained from the vote, because it was illegal.
You keep skipping parts of the history. You bring up that Viktor Yanukovych’s removal was illegal and not that the court’s removal of the 2004 amendments were, themselves, illegal. (Somehow the people who were supposed to implement the constitution were above it?) or that the president went against the Legislature’s will by denying the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, which again, they had a right to write and approve the treaty…
Was the court striking down those amendments unconstitutional? I’m under the impression that’s a power that’s granted to them and not really able to find proof that it was an illegal move. Can I get a cite for that? I’m seeing political opponents of the move saying that, but not any unbiased sources. This article from the Kyiv Post mentions a member of an opposition party’s opinion, but that’s it.
EDIT Although reading the Venice Commission, I’m getting the impression Ukraine’s constitutional court is a clown show. Maybe it was illegal, maybe not, who knows! It seems the Court’s authority isn’t clearly defined. As someone from America, that sure fucking sounds familiar!