Richard Lines
pfm Member
IMO the UK needs a defense policy not an attack policy, we can’t afford it.
Can we afford not to might be the right way to think about this?
Regards
Richard
IMO the UK needs a defense policy not an attack policy, we can’t afford it.
perhaps those contributing the most to the to bickering here will donate in equal measure well we can hope.
Will they respond by also arming their tanks with depleted uranium?It's going 'nuclear' albeit not in that sense. Yet...
Putin says Russia ‘will respond’ if UK supplies depleted uranium shells to Ukraine
“If all this happens, Russian will have to respond accordingly, given that the west collectively is already beginning to use weapons with a nuclear component.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...k-supplies-depleted-uranium-shells-to-ukraine
As I understand it, depleted uranium is used simply because it has Trump-like denseness, The shells of the Gatling of the A-10 Warthog tank demolishing plane are depleted uranium.
Possible of course, I can live with both sides having humanitarian relief.some of them might donate to Russia!
You miss the word “if” out of your quote above. My post was not about neoliberalism per se, it was about what the post war economic situation of Ukraine and whether Ukraine will be able to keep its promise to increase social provision.No, I was talking about the Greek package. I was specifically responding to the part in your message #4004 where you said "Ukraine would find its own ability to manage it’s own economy compromised in much the same way as the Greeks". We've been around these arguments many times before: you are most probably referring to the way the EU constrains the ability of member states to run large deficits because the "control" of the currency has been taken away from them by the euro/ECB and because the EU is at heart a neo-liberal project. Separately, you have been at least somewhat sympathetic to the view that NATO by its actions may bear some responsibility (exact percentage to be determined) in certain events that led Russia to invade Ukraine.
The Greeks are indeed recipients/members of the EU + NATO combo package. While they have expressed frustration at times with both parts, there is a consensus in Greece today that membership in both the eurozone and NATO is to be preserved. My simple point is that the Ukrainians would sign up to the same tomorrow morning if they could (they can't, yet). Greece is in a dramatically better situation than Ukraine in part because of its membership of those two organizations. Bringing up Greece in a Ukraine thread as a way of complaining that the EU would constrain Ukraine's ability to manage its affairs is bizarre: Ukraine's GDP and infrastructure are literally shot to bits, key parts of its territory are occupied and/or destroyed, but Ukraine's economy is being kept afloat at the moment by many billions in cash from the EU and the US (not to minimize contributions from other corners, of course).
As for the IMF, it's in the business of providing loans. Like all lenders, it ties conditions to those loans. If those conditions are unacceptable, I'm sure the Ukrainian government has a few channels at its disposal these days to complain effectively.
As I have already said, my original post was about maintaining interest in the effects of peace on the Ukrainian people rather than neoliberalism itself. Yes, of course I have an interest in neoliberalism but that was not the main point of my post. It was Kirk who brought up neoliberism and my post was in response to him bringing up neoliberalism by name and in so doing making false assumptions about it.See previous post: your criticism of the EU in post 4004 is most definitely based on your frequently expressed view that the EU's ideology is essentially neo-liberal. No idea why you say I brought it up. I haven't made that one up, as demonstrated in your next sentence:
No, I don’t.Don't you think that's maybe just a tad simplistic?
Precisely, that’s my pointHmmm, ISTM those birds are everywhere, all the time.
Fairy godmothers don’t exist.There will also be some fairy Godmothers, some well-meaning people and organizations that will want to help in a disinterested way.
Yours is a familiar tactic though. You spend a great deal of time and effort trying to exclude certain topics and certain voices, then bring them up again and again wrapped in sarcasm and false assumptions in order to then try to shut the conversation down again.I'm guilty of mentioning neo-liberalism. I'm off to confession.
Not sure that massive investment in military defence would’ve stopped the Salisbury poisoningAs long as Putin types exist (and there are a few of them around at the moment), we need to continue to invest in defense. It's bad enough that we let a couple of GRU types into Salisbury.
Back from confession and all is forgiven, but it now looks like I'm now being 'ad-hommed'. Ahem.
.
Pointing out observations or perceptions of a poster's MO is not ad-hom.Back from confession and all is forgiven, but it now looks like I'm now being 'ad-hommed'. Ahem.
I am a product of NYC public schools and I am sure my level of gentility will be found lacking in some European mileus.
I would also say that the referencing of recent-ish historical US actions are particularly relevant because of the accusations that Ukraine was another attempt by the US at regime change. I imagine most people are aware of such accusations, particularly around events in 2014, but see, for example, John Mearsheimer for a respected academic opinion along these lines https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault if not.
Incidentally*, the US also attacked the power grid in Iraq as part of its 'shock and awe', as Russia is doing with Ukraine.
* For the over-excitable whataboutery crowd, please note that this is an incidental point.
Nor did I claim you said/wrote that.I have never said that NATO bears some responsibility for the Russian invasion.
Nor did I claim you said/wrote that.
you have been at least somewhat sympathetic to the view that NATO by its actions may bear some responsibility (exact percentage to be determined) in certain events that led Russia to invade Ukraine.
But I haven’t said that “NATO by its actions may bear some responsibility (exact percentage to be determined) in certain events that led Russia to invade Ukraine.”I'm sure you can understand the difference between those 2 sentences.