Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating
Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating
A decision to negotiate over the heads of the Ukrainians would reveal just how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.
A decision to negotiate over the heads of the Ukrainians would reveal just how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
You're viewing part of a thread.
The Wikipedia entry referencing news articles doesn’t mean much if the articles themselves are pushing western propaganda. Especially considering how many news agencies are (or were) on the payroll of USAID, I wouldn’t expect to see them challenge the NATO narrative.
Giving more weight to Wikipedia articles than Ukrainian officials is definitely… an interesting choice.
They're all referencing the same interview and the same quotes from the same person... None of them seems to disagree on what he said as such. He just literally doesn't in any of the quoted parts in any of the articles linked claim or confirm what your news article claimed it confirms, they're just making a claim of their own on the meaning of his words and their own opinion. That's the difference.
Hell, you linked to The European Conservative which is an outright even in the name politically biased news source. But it's the same quotes on all of them, so that part doesn't matter since the actual interview is there.
Giving more weight to Wikipedia articles than Ukrainian officials is definitely… an interesting choice.
It's the same exact official that's being quoted in all of the news articles. How are you not getting this... The official being quoted just doesn't say what you claimed he did. You saw Wikipedia and thought that's your way out of your claim but missed the whole thing of it being literally the same person with everyone referencing literally the same interview lol.
You should watch this Jeffrey Sachs interview. He’s also wrote a number of articles delving into the details.
>Doesn't actually address any of the points mentioned
>Drops in a 26 minute video
>"Just watch this bro"
Fucking bravo.
Bro you just expect me to look at a primary source after I copy and pasted a wikipedia article? how do you think internet arguments work??
You know Wikipedia has their sources in these things [1] and it links to the actual source. Wikipedia in itself isn't the source. And the source for all of them (including the other guy's news article) was the exact same interview.
how do you think internet arguments work??
Definitely not good form to not make any points, but just drop a link to a 26 min video. It's the same as saying source: a whole book. You make the argument and cite the parts you're using for your argument. It's sorta internet arguments 101.
It’s the same as saying source: a whole book.
Grow the fuck up and learn how to chew your own food, baby bird.
The other commenter is completely correct here. If you don’t point to the exact material on which you’re basing your argument, you haven’t cited the material.
Them: "you aren't well versed in this subject, here is an interview with an author and I recommend you look at his articles"
You: "LOL YOU DIDN'T GIVE ME A PAGE NUMBER AND PARAGRAPH"
Shut the fuck up you fucking idiot. Cynically misusing a concept in a context it doesn't apply just so you can be fucking lazy and bad faith.
Are you doing alright?
You wouldn't just say "souce: book" in a thesis or studies, where people are actually reading pages and pages of stuff. You cite the actual part you are referencing. Idk why you'd think it's good form to do that in an online arguments. It just seems like a copout, hoping that the other person doesn't actually check tbh.
No, you're the one coping out by both refusing to engage in good faith AND refusing to do the work of fact checking if you want to be so pedantic and skeptical. You want to have it both ways. And in the end the result is always you ignoring information and arguments you don't like. If you're not invested enough in your objection to skim through 15 minutes of transcript you shouldn't be invested enough to keep flapping your mouth in ignorance of it.
I would've been happy to engage if they stated what point they were trying to make and how and what part of the video they are citing. I'm still happy to do that. If you're expecting others to just figure that out by themselves from a 26 minute video, you are going to have a bad time. If it's not fine on a study or thesis, why would you think it's fine in a fast paced short form internet argument?
When you are making an argument, you are trying to convince the other person. If you don't clearly make your case and rely on them to figure out your argument and what supports it, it's just not going to work well. At that point it feels like the person is trying to convince themselves and not the other person.
I understand you're upset about me not doing the work for them, but there's no need not to be civil about this. This seems to just be a case of us having a very different expectation on what people should do in arguments or how they should argue.
If it’s not fine on a study or thesis, why would you think it’s fine in a fast paced short form internet argument?
Impossible to take you seriously when you don't have a moment's dissonance saying shit like this. "If it's not correct in context A it shouldn't be correct in context B which is almost exactly opposite to what context A looks like"
You aren't even attempting the mental gymnastics. You're just saying 2+2 = 5 without added effort.
Yes, I understand it’s frustrating when we deviate from the NATO script. Can this bot not digest videos? He’s written a number of articles about it, too. Here’s one:
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/s6ap8hxhp34hg252wtwwwtdw4afw7x?format=amp
Article is better, but even better would be if you quoted a part that's actually relevant to whatever point you're trying to make. And perhaps even stated what point you're trying to make.
If this is still about Ukrainians being "western handlers ordered them to keep fighting", your linked article doesn't give you much help:
U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, following in the tradition of British anti-Russian war-mongering dating back to the Crimean War (1853-6), actually flew to Kiev to warn Zelensky against neutrality and the importance of Ukraine defeating Russia on the battlefield.
So much so for Western handlers ordering them to keep fighting. Wah-wah.
Take your pick. You very broadly denied western involvement, and this delves into the details.
That quote actually makes my point. Not yours.
You very broadly denied western involvement, and this delves into the details.
Do share where I "broadly denied western involvement".
That quote actually makes my point. Not yours.
For reference, your point:
Ukraine wasn’t invited to the decision to fight a proxy war either, or have its government overthrown in the Maidan Coup. And when they attempted peace talks before, their western handlers ordered them to keep fighting.
It does not at all prove your point. It's just again based on the interview where the person doesn't actually say any of that and he actually said there were many reasons for the talks having failed, namely lacking security guarantees. Wah-wah.
Why are you just throwing links? You should at least make an attempt to quote your sources so you don't leave people here reading erroneous information. @Kusimulkku at least gave you the courtesy of doing that.
If I summarize the info, I’m accused of making it up. If I provide sources, I get complaints about no one wanting to read links.
Bots will move the goalposts no matter what they get.