• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    We’re talking in the range of billions. Roughly $200M a year. That’s a lot of money for a country as poor as Ukraine.

    That’s less than Germany gives Palestine each year and Palestine is vastly smaller. 200M are about five bucks per Ukrainian, per year. That’s five litres of milk. A not entirely shabby bottle of wine. Five bucks a year are about 40ct a month, or about 1/1250th of the average Ukrainian wage. You can get a metro ticket for that. And how much of that was even spent in Ukraine itself, as opposed to paying people in America to decide what to do with the money.

    Ukraine is Europe-poor, not Africa-poor. It’s a fully developed and industrialised country. 200M is ballpark Poroshenko’s yearly increase in wealth while in power. Not, mind you, all of it ill-begotten (by capitalist standards) he does produce some fine chocolate.

    I’ll make some claims and please tell me if we agree on them (I believe we will, because you agree $$$ influences democracy)

    Not what I said. I said that politics can be bought, not that all money buys politics, or that all politics is bought. On top of that it’s not always a bad thing, say funnelling some money to an NGO or newspaper keen on exposing corruption.

    Starts to fill in a pattern. Remember Occam’s Razor. What’s simplest is probably what is true.

    She’s a witch, she did it!

    Occam’s razor cannot account for leaving out context, for data not considered, for tunnel vision. If you’re only reductionist enough you can use it to justify absolutely any conclusion.

    It was just a coincidence that the coup led to a pro-US government.

    WTH is “pro-US” supposed to mean. I’m not aware of Poroshenko selling state-owned enterprises to US corporate interest or such for way below value, that would the the usual thing to look out for.