wellfill @ wellfill @lemmy.ml Posts 1Comments 40Joined 10 mo. ago
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.
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.
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.
Ah sorry I believe that in Germany they call it incitement to hate or something like that, which is criminal.
edit: from a very quick search I found this http://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/8/6/german-court-fines-woman-for-from-the-river-to-the-sea-chant which meand that by this judicature it is directly criminal. Also this source https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/1699528989-berlin-criminalizes-slogan-from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-will-be-free. But here I dont know how reliable this source is
No censorship of speech has always been liberal. /s Also its kidna funny how eastern european countries now have stronger foundations of liberal democracy than germany, since statements like "from the river to the sea" are not criminalized as antisemitic.
Well to his credit he, as of now, still murdered less people than Kissinger.
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.
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.
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.
While I am also critical of the western media propaganda, labeling this as a war of liberation is simply plain wrong. This sort of logic US used when it was trying to 'liberate' countries like Vietnam, Nicaragua, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. It is a war of Russian aggression in response to stupid Western provocation. Reverting the stable Minsk 2 agreement was a US led effort.
Looking at the comments, has anyone actually read the article?
Finally some good news.
In 2007, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a case involving Bosnia and Serbia, established that the obligation to refrain from providing weapons or other assistance begins the moment a state becomes aware of the existence of a serious risk that genocide may be committed. Now would you agree or disagree that by issuing the warrants or even before claiming actions "consistent with genocide", the us was "aware of serious risk"? If it did then its punishable by Article 3, which deals with complicity, which itself then constitutes genocide.
Is that what he said? No. Explanation does not equal justification. Just like the oct 7th does not justify the genocide in gaza, but it certainly is a part of its explanation and one may even come to a conclusion that it was provocative. I cannot understand how do people still have this brainfog when it comes to basic logic and context in these mattters
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.
then you don't know much about him
Chomsky is alive at 96
BRICS expands with 9 new partner countries. Now it's half of world population, 41% of global economy
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.
BRICS expands with 9 new partner countries. Now it's half of world population, 41% of global economy
While Im not a tankie, they do have some historical appeal. You know like beating the Nazis, some small things here and there.