4 ms·

Indeed. I can't comment on gas prices (it would be immoral to raise prices artificially to exploit those in need, if that were the case), but where weapons are

Indeed. I can't comment on gas prices (it would be immoral to raise prices artificially to exploit those in need, if that were the case), but where weapons are concerned, all things remaining the same, it is cheaper for everyone to give Ukraine weapons for free than having NATO enter the war, which would, by all reasonable accounts, be catastrophic. The notion that US corporations are profiting from selling weapons is so preposterously boneheaded. OBVIOUSLY, if there's a war, governments will buy weapons from defense companies, and therefore OBVIOUSLY, these corporations will make profits. The US didn't start this war, much less to profit from it, even if it shares in the responsibility of giving Russia all sorts of incentives to do so. What I think is that this "moralizing" reflects a general fear of Western Europe's plummeting position in Europe and the loss of American favor. Their true colors and interests (including those involving Russia) have been exposed, and they don't like the geopolitical shift of power eastward toward the center (one which will, as it had historically for centuries, act to stabilize Europe). The war is merely hastening their decline, so they're grasping at straws and whining.

kloper 4y ago
Loss of American favor? Since the cold war Eastern European immigrants have had an outsized influence on U.S. foreign policy. Th U.S. has been playing off the Eastern European countries against the Western since the fall of the Soviet Union. This is not exactly new. If Eastern European countries are so unhappy, perhaps France/Germany/Austria/Italy should form a new EU. We are tired of paying while being bashed for it.
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  > Loss of American favor? Since the cold war Eastern European immigrants have had an outsized influence on U.S. foreign policy. Who are these immigrants? Jewish immigrants from EE? That would sooner mean negotiating favorable terms for Israel and US-Israel relations. Aside from Zbigniew Brzezinski, I don't see any of this "outsized" Eastern European influence on Cold War US foreign policy that you seem to be insinuating. Indeed, the insufficiency of influence has historically been a conspicuous concern in Polish foreign policy and diplomatic circles (recall how Radek Sikorski was caught on tape complaining about Poland giving the US proverbial blowjobs like some third rate vassal). At best, during the Cold War, the oppressed people of Central/Eastern Europe had a common foe in the Soviets. It was W. Europe that received a massive influx of US capital and investment for reconstruction and defense because it had an interest in doing so (feel free to call this sort of "favor" an imperialist power move; the fact remains). > If Eastern European countries are so unhappy, perhaps France/Germany/Austria/Italy should form a new EU. We are tired of paying while being bashed for it. What a strange evasive maneuver. Crying out in pain as you beat down someone else? Who is getting bashed here? It's one thing to criticize political developments in a fellow member EU country, it is another to misrepresent what's actually happening to justify coercive policies. I can smell the patronizing presuppositions already. "Why, those ungrateful, uppity C/E Europeans!" If those countries want to form a new EU instead of doing a little bit of reflection or self-criticism, so be it (I wouldn't bet too much on the common unity of that motley crew of countries, though: Austria has signaled a greater, and I would say historical interest in the East with its membership in the TSI, and Italy isn't exactly in love with Germany, either).
vinyl7 4y ago
> it is cheaper for everyone to give Ukraine weapons for free than having NATO enter the war, which would, by all reasonable accounts, be catastrophic. The notion that US corporations are profiting from selling weapons is so preposterously boneheaded. I don't think the US as a country is profiting. Yes, the defense companies are...but at the same time...how many people in Congress or in decision making positions are shareholders of defense companies? And what about the defense company's lobbying efforts and campaign contributions?
jemmyw 4y ago
I'm not quite sure how catastrophic it would have been for NATO to enter the war. Catastrophic for Russia. Not catastrophic for civilians in Ukraine who were mass murdered.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  You think that World War 3 starting in Ukraine would have been less catastrophic for the civilians of Ukraine? If NATO starts openly fighting Russia, do you imagine there is even one shred of a chance that Ukraine doesn't get nuked?
  - jemmyw 4y ago
    I don't believe it would start ww3, Russia's military isn't capable enough for that. And I do not believe they would use a nuke, especial against NATO troops on the ground. If you believe Russian doctrine, which they've quoted several times, they would only use nukes if Russia itself is under existential threat. Not that I do believe that, but do you think those who can authorise a nuke really want to end the world and die over not getting to change the government of Ukraine?

kloper 4y ago

Loss of American favor? Since the cold war Eastern European immigrants have had an outsized influence on U.S. foreign policy. Th U.S. has been playing off the Eastern European countries against the Western since the fall of the Soviet Union. This is not exactly new. If Eastern European countries are so unhappy, perhaps France/Germany/Austria/Italy should form a new EU. We are tired of paying while being bashed for it.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago
> Loss of American favor? Since the cold war Eastern European immigrants have had an outsized influence on U.S. foreign policy. Who are these immigrants? Jewish immigrants from EE? That would sooner mean negotiating favorable terms for Israel and US-Israel relations. Aside from Zbigniew Brzezinski, I don't see any of this "outsized" Eastern European influence on Cold War US foreign policy that you seem to be insinuating. Indeed, the insufficiency of influence has historically been a conspicuous concern in Polish foreign policy and diplomatic circles (recall how Radek Sikorski was caught on tape complaining about Poland giving the US proverbial blowjobs like some third rate vassal). At best, during the Cold War, the oppressed people of Central/Eastern Europe had a common foe in the Soviets. It was W. Europe that received a massive influx of US capital and investment for reconstruction and defense because it had an interest in doing so (feel free to call this sort of "favor" an imperialist power move; the fact remains). > If Eastern European countries are so unhappy, perhaps France/Germany/Austria/Italy should form a new EU. We are tired of paying while being bashed for it. What a strange evasive maneuver. Crying out in pain as you beat down someone else? Who is getting bashed here? It's one thing to criticize political developments in a fellow member EU country, it is another to misrepresent what's actually happening to justify coercive policies. I can smell the patronizing presuppositions already. "Why, those ungrateful, uppity C/E Europeans!" If those countries want to form a new EU instead of doing a little bit of reflection or self-criticism, so be it (I wouldn't bet too much on the common unity of that motley crew of countries, though: Austria has signaled a greater, and I would say historical interest in the East with its membership in the TSI, and Italy isn't exactly in love with Germany, either).

vinyl7 4y ago

> it is cheaper for everyone to give Ukraine weapons for free than having NATO enter the war, which would, by all reasonable accounts, be catastrophic. The notion that US corporations are profiting from selling weapons is so preposterously boneheaded. I don't think the US as a country is profiting. Yes, the defense companies are...but at the same time...how many people in Congress or in decision making positions are shareholders of defense companies? And what about the defense company's lobbying efforts and campaign contributions?

jemmyw 4y ago

I'm not quite sure how catastrophic it would have been for NATO to enter the war. Catastrophic for Russia. Not catastrophic for civilians in Ukraine who were mass murdered.

tsimionescu 4y ago
You think that World War 3 starting in Ukraine would have been less catastrophic for the civilians of Ukraine? If NATO starts openly fighting Russia, do you imagine there is even one shred of a chance that Ukraine doesn't get nuked?
- jemmyw 4y ago
  I don't believe it would start ww3, Russia's military isn't capable enough for that. And I do not believe they would use a nuke, especial against NATO troops on the ground. If you believe Russian doctrine, which they've quoted several times, they would only use nukes if Russia itself is under existential threat. Not that I do believe that, but do you think those who can authorise a nuke really want to end the world and die over not getting to change the government of Ukraine?