He’s assuming that because that’s what he would do in this situation, because he has the critical thinking skills of a spanner. He thinks every other politician is like him, he doesn’t get that most of them are basically just constantly playing in a personality contest, which is something he’s never had to do.
There’s basically flat support for the war at the moment, there isn’t really any interest in removing support and there isn’t really any interest in granting additional support (actual military intervention, WMDs). As long as Europeans are not adversely affected by the existence of this war, the support isn’t going to go anywhere.
If somebody were to turn up with some actual evidence that say we could have built 30,000 houses but instead we sent Ukraine 20 missiles, or whatever, then maybe that would turn the tide, but I don’t think anybody has that data because in most countries military spending is pre-allocated.
You do realize that the vast majority of the dollars from various countries’ Ukrainian war support programs doesn’t actually leave the domestic economy, right? Take the US for example; America says it’ll send 50 billion USD of defense equipment, America sends that amount of equipment from it’s current sites, it then buys new stuff from domestic manufacturers to replace what is now absent.
This is what is happening across Europe, as well. Ukraine gets stuff that’s old, but still good enough to embarrass Russia’s weapons platforms, while the donating country gets to outfit it’s forces in even newer shit.
I’m 100% for giving Ukraine weapons to defend their country and European freedom indirectly. That our old weapons are better that current russian weapons is an unexpected delight
I think they assume that Ukraine support will wane over time, that the West will get distracted and stubborness alone will turn the tide.
He’s assuming that because that’s what he would do in this situation, because he has the critical thinking skills of a spanner. He thinks every other politician is like him, he doesn’t get that most of them are basically just constantly playing in a personality contest, which is something he’s never had to do.
There’s basically flat support for the war at the moment, there isn’t really any interest in removing support and there isn’t really any interest in granting additional support (actual military intervention, WMDs). As long as Europeans are not adversely affected by the existence of this war, the support isn’t going to go anywhere.
If somebody were to turn up with some actual evidence that say we could have built 30,000 houses but instead we sent Ukraine 20 missiles, or whatever, then maybe that would turn the tide, but I don’t think anybody has that data because in most countries military spending is pre-allocated.
You could build a whole lot of houses instead of funding a war. But the houses will become someone else’s.
You do realize that the vast majority of the dollars from various countries’ Ukrainian war support programs doesn’t actually leave the domestic economy, right? Take the US for example; America says it’ll send 50 billion USD of defense equipment, America sends that amount of equipment from it’s current sites, it then buys new stuff from domestic manufacturers to replace what is now absent.
This is what is happening across Europe, as well. Ukraine gets stuff that’s old, but still good enough to embarrass Russia’s weapons platforms, while the donating country gets to outfit it’s forces in even newer shit.
I’m 100% for giving Ukraine weapons to defend their country and European freedom indirectly. That our old weapons are better that current russian weapons is an unexpected delight
Building housing is usually not a money issue, but a zoning issue.