Barely any autonomy. Everyone can see the EU is a fragmented mess of foreign lobbyists trying to get their pie from each EU country. With the US being the strongest outside influence by far.
I do believe my initial statement was unambiguous. The intellectual deficiency here lies not in the articulation but in its reception. Allow me to elucidate for your particular benefit. The European Union has declined to appropriate funds for the welfare of its own populace, yet demonstrates remarkable alacrity in committing vastly greater sums to perpetuate the conflict in Ukraine. Should this simplified rendition still prove too conceptually demanding, I am prepared to compose it in words of one syllable.
How is it you feel the 2 are related? And is it your view that Europe cannot spend money to help stop an obvious threat to Europe, ever, forevermore. Because they didn’t bail Greece out over 20 years ago?
And you don’t see how damaging the currency used by all EU member states would hurt more people?
I mean, there’s like 10 other ways this makes no sense and you’ve not made any kind of argument or supported your statement with anything at all other than pointing out the EU did something now. And didn’t do something entirely different in the past
Your attempt at a rebuttal is a fascinating study in missing the point. You have constructed a series of elaborate, irrelevant hypotheticals while steadfastly ignoring the central, rather blatant contradiction I presented. The relationship is one of priority, a concept you seem to graze but never fully grasp. It is not that Europe cannot address external threats. It is that its institutions consistently find limitless coffers for geopolitical artillery while pleading poverty for domestic welfare. To equate a sovereign debt crisis from a bygone decade with the present-day choice to fund foreign armaments over internal aid is either disingenuous or remarkably simplistic.
Your sudden concern for the sanctity of the common currency is touching, if conveniently selective. The fiscal prudence you now champion was notably absent when underwriting banks or military contracts. You demand an exhaustive thesis when a simple observation of present action versus present inaction suffices. The argument is self evident in the allocation. That you require it spelled out with supporting footnotes merely confirms the initial assessment of your comprehension. Shall I draw you a picture?
What blatant contradiction? What priorities? They didn’t bail Greece out of a banking crisis 20 years ago, they have committed money to Ukraine now. I take it you find these 2 decisions to be incongruous? Why? You can’t explain yourself other than to say that you don’t think those 2 decisions can both be made without the decision maker being a hypocrite? Is this at least a correct interpretation of whatever you are trying to say?
If so, ok? So what. You believe it’s hypocritical? Great. Others don’t. Support your position.
You have now reduced a critique of current policy to a childish whine of hypocrisy. Very well. If you insist on a primer. Supporting the position requires only the examination of a single budget cycle. Observe the funds allocated for military aid to a non-member state. Then observe the funds denied for energy subsidies, social stabilization, or infrastructure renewal within the member states themselves. The support is in the spreadsheet. The argument is in the allocation. The hypocrisy is in the rhetorical commitment to a social Europe that is perpetually deferred in favor of a fortress Europe.
If you cannot discern an argument within the empirical evidence of fiscal choices, then no amount of explanation will penetrate the fog. You are demanding a philosophical treatise when the proof is in the accounting. It is not my fault you are reading the ledger without comprehension.
The proof of what!! What are you trying to prove? What argument are you making? What on earth if your goddamn position here? I didn’t reduce anything to hypocracy, I was asking if that was your position because I have no idea what your position is. If it isn’t. That was your opportunity to clarify.
A debt and banking crisis, yeah. Not a fucking war
I wasn’t aware the the EU was at war.
How is the MIC going to profit from a banking crisis?
Good question. I can see how American MIC can benefit by further cannibalizing EU industry. How anybody in the EU can benefit from this is beyond me.
The EU is nothing more than an American colony.
Sure big ties with US but they have some autonomy left. A working eu would actually be really good in theory, but what it is now is a disaster.
Barely any autonomy. Everyone can see the EU is a fragmented mess of foreign lobbyists trying to get their pie from each EU country. With the US being the strongest outside influence by far.
They aren’t. Want to say what you actually mean now dumbass
I do believe my initial statement was unambiguous. The intellectual deficiency here lies not in the articulation but in its reception. Allow me to elucidate for your particular benefit. The European Union has declined to appropriate funds for the welfare of its own populace, yet demonstrates remarkable alacrity in committing vastly greater sums to perpetuate the conflict in Ukraine. Should this simplified rendition still prove too conceptually demanding, I am prepared to compose it in words of one syllable.
How is it you feel the 2 are related? And is it your view that Europe cannot spend money to help stop an obvious threat to Europe, ever, forevermore. Because they didn’t bail Greece out over 20 years ago?
And you don’t see how damaging the currency used by all EU member states would hurt more people?
I mean, there’s like 10 other ways this makes no sense and you’ve not made any kind of argument or supported your statement with anything at all other than pointing out the EU did something now. And didn’t do something entirely different in the past
What is the threat to us, exactly? You think Russia, which hasn’t taken Kyiv with a million dead, is going to march through Paris next week?
Your attempt at a rebuttal is a fascinating study in missing the point. You have constructed a series of elaborate, irrelevant hypotheticals while steadfastly ignoring the central, rather blatant contradiction I presented. The relationship is one of priority, a concept you seem to graze but never fully grasp. It is not that Europe cannot address external threats. It is that its institutions consistently find limitless coffers for geopolitical artillery while pleading poverty for domestic welfare. To equate a sovereign debt crisis from a bygone decade with the present-day choice to fund foreign armaments over internal aid is either disingenuous or remarkably simplistic.
Your sudden concern for the sanctity of the common currency is touching, if conveniently selective. The fiscal prudence you now champion was notably absent when underwriting banks or military contracts. You demand an exhaustive thesis when a simple observation of present action versus present inaction suffices. The argument is self evident in the allocation. That you require it spelled out with supporting footnotes merely confirms the initial assessment of your comprehension. Shall I draw you a picture?
What blatant contradiction? What priorities? They didn’t bail Greece out of a banking crisis 20 years ago, they have committed money to Ukraine now. I take it you find these 2 decisions to be incongruous? Why? You can’t explain yourself other than to say that you don’t think those 2 decisions can both be made without the decision maker being a hypocrite? Is this at least a correct interpretation of whatever you are trying to say?
If so, ok? So what. You believe it’s hypocritical? Great. Others don’t. Support your position.
You have now reduced a critique of current policy to a childish whine of hypocrisy. Very well. If you insist on a primer. Supporting the position requires only the examination of a single budget cycle. Observe the funds allocated for military aid to a non-member state. Then observe the funds denied for energy subsidies, social stabilization, or infrastructure renewal within the member states themselves. The support is in the spreadsheet. The argument is in the allocation. The hypocrisy is in the rhetorical commitment to a social Europe that is perpetually deferred in favor of a fortress Europe.
If you cannot discern an argument within the empirical evidence of fiscal choices, then no amount of explanation will penetrate the fog. You are demanding a philosophical treatise when the proof is in the accounting. It is not my fault you are reading the ledger without comprehension.
The proof of what!! What are you trying to prove? What argument are you making? What on earth if your goddamn position here? I didn’t reduce anything to hypocracy, I was asking if that was your position because I have no idea what your position is. If it isn’t. That was your opportunity to clarify.