Assumptions are extremely important. If they’re wrong, everything which follows is probably wrong too. So when analysts don’t make their assumptions clear to policy makers, but instead try to pass them off as facts, there’s a great danger that poor decisions will result.
What brings this to mind is a new report by Duncan Allan, published by Chatham House and entitled Managed Confrontation: UK Policy Towards Russia After the Salisbury Attack....While what professor Robinson says is clearly correct, I assume, on the other hand, that his analysis is mooted. That is to say, the British elite are fully aware of this and that the report is simply a propaganda piece churned out by Chatham House to drum up of Anglo-American confrontation with Russia.
The Europeans would be wise to see the UK go rather than have a snake in their midst.
Irrussianality
AssumptionsPaul Robinson | Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa
2 comments:
“Assumptions are extremely important. If they’re wrong, everything which follows is probably wrong too.”
You mean like the assumption at the U.S. government runs on tax revenue, for instance?
If we start with false assumptions, then anything we say about economics (anything) will help to widen the gap between the rich and the rest. And anything was say about war will make war more likely.
“The report is simply a propaganda piece churned out by Chatham House to drum up of Anglo-American confrontation with Russia.”
Of course it is. Chatham House is a pro-war, pro-neoliberal propaganda mill that treats the Skripal gassing hoax as a fact. Hillary Clinton was one of their darlings. (“We came, we saw, he died!”)
Yes, I always believed Europe would be better off without the UK. I guess the Americans wanted us in to steer Europe away from its social democracy. They're better off without the Anglo-Saxons.
Post a Comment