60
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 27 points 9 months ago

“Those who come with wheat, millet, corn or milk, they are not helping us. Those who really want to help us can give us ploughs, tractors, fertilizers, insecticides, watering cans, drills and dams. That is how we would define food aid.” - Sankara

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 36 points 9 months ago

That's where China comes into the picture.

[-] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 9 months ago

Are you against this delivery then?

[-] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 9 months ago

No but we must be critical of every policy like this, if its not followed by tools and know-how, its just bribery/political capital.

[-] PbSO4@hexbear.net 16 points 9 months ago

Let us consider that every ton of food sent as humanitarian aid by Russia is a ton of food not purchased from the US. Every ton of food not purchased from the US is x dollars that did not have to be either borrowed (with conditions including economic restructuring) or earned by selling goods and industries at pennies on the dollar to Western consumers. It does not solve the issue of developing productive forces in the target nations, but its impact is more anti-imperial than it might initially appear.

[-] SadArtemis@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 8 months ago

To be fair- Russia's industrial capacity is not what it once was- and what remains, is geared towards something else entirely at the moment. China can provide the ploughs and tractors and infrastructure, wheat (and oil) is what Russia has the means to provide the world, currently.

Part of the whole "shock therapy" was specifically around destroying Russia's own indigenous means of producing these things (manufactured goods like tractors) and making it dependent on western industry instead.

this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
60 points (96.9% liked)

World News

2310 readers
98 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS