wellfill

joined 6 months ago
[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I dont think that he is particularly upset.

No see if one was to compare his advice take the one to the us planners that they should provide for example loans to the soviets it was completely rejected, as the us chauvinistically did not want to help.

Quote of whom?

First where does security concern equal "standing up to something". Secondly what exactly do you mean by the concept of rational bias?

edit: do you know that some bolsheviks pragmatically supported capitalist policies as means to help the national economy and as transitional to communism. Your argument crumbles even in this respect.

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Calling something by the wrong "name" is not exactly criticism.

The fact that his ideas were mostly not implemented is a matter of observation.

Quite a stretch of the word quote, is this wikipedia?

Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist, we can reject dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis.

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult. The soviet privatization is not representative because his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies. From your paste is also Ukraine missing.

But I partially agree that he talks diplomatically, so he wont always say exactly what he thinks.

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (17 children)

No he typically tries to stabilize economies, thats his expertise. He tried to argue that the US should have helped russia economically. His advice was mostly ignored by soviets and later by Yelstin during the horrendous privatization.

But he is diplomatic, so yes he filters what he says.

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I encourage everyone to at least read his wikipedia page. Judge for yourself if someone with his experience might have something of substance to say.

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Ok, lets take a look at the IISS table because the sipri only uses estimates for Russia. When you look at the source of the IISS table you get to a graph which shows that while for all other countries expenditure, the one for Russia and China have been ppp adjusted, meaning that the actual expenditure is different. The adjustment tells you what worth of goods you could buy from I'm assuming US market. Why the wiki table shows only these recalculated values for just Russia and China is beyond me. I also found an actually accessible article version of the FT https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/russias-2024-military-budget-exceeds-total-eu-defense-spending-ft/ar-AA1yWN0u To sum up the Russian expenditure DID exceed the european as in the FT, it only may be unclear what weapons they bought with it, but for the argument that EU outspends them, that is wrong.

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

If the Palestinians had that power they would hand Bibi and most of his cabinet over to the ICJ for their war crimes. Then of course large part of the parliament and probably most of IDF members who participated in the genocide. Then they would hand over the settlers for their crimes. And maybe later they would hand over most of the european colonialists that call themselves israeli now. Now even though IDF is the most moral army in the world, I see no intention of theirs to adhere to not commiting war crimes like genocide, so I don't think that they will 'remove' themselves. Though if they did I also wouldn't blame them. As for Palestinians, they seem to stick to other means of resistance for now.

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

Looking at the comments, has anyone actually read the article?

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 month ago

Finally some good news.

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If they were puppets, how could they come to their current conclusions? There are real puppets like for example German and now Polish governments, but the issue that icj, icc are facing is that how can you regulate crimes of empires, when they have too much power. Well for now lets at least record their crimes. So that in future they will remain in memory and if the power balance shifts, sanctions will follow.

[–] wellfill@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Their sacrifice in WW2, which was from a certain point on deliberate and ideology based(as in that they would not accept any rule of nazi ideology), has served even you. Unless you want a world where the nazis didnt lose, you too are in the debt of these tankies.

view more: next ›