That review is for news articles. If you look at the URL, it very clearly includes “blog”, so this is an opinion piece, which I take with the same amount of consideration as Letters To The Editor.
Richard Nixon? You can’t expect us to trust anything associated with a ratfucker.
Uh… yes. It’s an opinion piece. You can disagree with the analysis from an opinion piece, but I linked mediabias checker to show it’s not just some random blog with no credibility that would just post an “AI Russian propaganda article”
(Also quiz for the class: who founded the EPA lmao)
Did we read the same article? It’s not super deep analysis (what do you expect from libertarians) but he’s backing up his claims with actual reporting if you follow the hyper links.
If I follow the links then I get informed that those peace talks actually happenend and that’s it.
I guess if I say that there is proof that the sun will explode tomorrow and then link an article showinging with pictures that the sun indeed exists, you will believe me, too?
Did you read the title of this article? Brilliantly loaded with two Russian taking points : US being the reason for the war and that Ukraine cannot win and should not even fight. No one that cares about credibility would write that.
I don’t think you really appreciate how we live in different worlds now.
I know the US provoked this war and I know that Ukraine can’t win, and you know Russia attacked for no reason and that Ukraine is on the cusp of victory, and nothing we can possibly type at each other will ever change that. Reality is dead. Choose your own adventure!
I know for a fact you are wrong and I’m right and it’s so easy to prove it. I’m the one talking about possibilities, you are the one taking in absolutes (and conspiracy theories) . That’s the reality. Talking in absolutes is a dead giveaway. It means a big separation from reality.
I don’t think Russia attacked for no reason and I don’t think Ukrainian victory is certain. I think it’s going to be a long and difficult conflict. What I do see is people reporting from the battles. Russian and Ukrainian and others. That’s the reality.
Let me rephrase it, just for you: you are taking in absolutes. In no universe is that sensible, let alone when taking about wars, not to mention without even defining what victory or loss would be. This alone points that you have a flaw somewhere in your thinking. At least that, if not that you are completely indoctrinated in an illogical way of thinking.
Ukraine, on its own, cannot win. It is far too small. It can only win with US weapons, but it has far fewer soldiers than Russia. So if the US sends weapons, Ukrainian soldiers will die. The question is in what ratio? The evidence is that Ukraine is losing soldiers faster than Russia. So the weapons sent by the West are guaranteeing Ukrainians die in droves.
Oh, I thought Russia just wanted to protect the Sudeten? That’s what I usually hear :)
Nato has nothing to do with it. I don’t know what stoltenberg said and how it was taken out of context, but NATO is an organisation to which countries apply. Nobody is forcing them to join (except the threat of Russian invasion).
Ukraine is not that small and Ukraine would fight if it gets the weapons or not,because they are fighting for themselves. Likely less will die when they have something to fight with.
The actual evidence shows that Ukraine is losing far less people than Russia. One of the most evident proofs is the oryx report of lost hardware. It had it’s flaws but I think it’s very relevant. The leaked US report about two months ago has Ukraine at about 70k dead and Russia at 120k.
That review is for news articles. If you look at the URL, it very clearly includes “blog”, so this is an opinion piece, which I take with the same amount of consideration as Letters To The Editor.
Richard Nixon? You can’t expect us to trust anything associated with a ratfucker.
Uh… yes. It’s an opinion piece. You can disagree with the analysis from an opinion piece, but I linked mediabias checker to show it’s not just some random blog with no credibility that would just post an “AI Russian propaganda article”
(Also quiz for the class: who founded the EPA lmao)
That would require an actual analyses existing instead of just a strong opinion with no evidence.
Did we read the same article? It’s not super deep analysis (what do you expect from libertarians) but he’s backing up his claims with actual reporting if you follow the hyper links.
If I follow the links then I get informed that those peace talks actually happenend and that’s it.
I guess if I say that there is proof that the sun will explode tomorrow and then link an article showinging with pictures that the sun indeed exists, you will believe me, too?
Did you read the title of this article? Brilliantly loaded with two Russian taking points : US being the reason for the war and that Ukraine cannot win and should not even fight. No one that cares about credibility would write that.
I don’t think you really appreciate how we live in different worlds now.
I know the US provoked this war and I know that Ukraine can’t win, and you know Russia attacked for no reason and that Ukraine is on the cusp of victory, and nothing we can possibly type at each other will ever change that. Reality is dead. Choose your own adventure!
I know for a fact you are wrong and I’m right and it’s so easy to prove it. I’m the one talking about possibilities, you are the one taking in absolutes (and conspiracy theories) . That’s the reality. Talking in absolutes is a dead giveaway. It means a big separation from reality.
I don’t think Russia attacked for no reason and I don’t think Ukrainian victory is certain. I think it’s going to be a long and difficult conflict. What I do see is people reporting from the battles. Russian and Ukrainian and others. That’s the reality.
followed by
is 🤌
Cute, but what your are really doing is dodging.
Let me rephrase it, just for you: you are taking in absolutes. In no universe is that sensible, let alone when taking about wars, not to mention without even defining what victory or loss would be. This alone points that you have a flaw somewhere in your thinking. At least that, if not that you are completely indoctrinated in an illogical way of thinking.
Oh my god we’re not on reddit, read the article not the headline ffs
You know, it is possible to read an article and then comment on the title?
I know, mind blowing!
Stoltenberg, the head of NATO said that the US push to expand NATO was the key reason for Russia’s action - https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion
Ukraine, on its own, cannot win. It is far too small. It can only win with US weapons, but it has far fewer soldiers than Russia. So if the US sends weapons, Ukrainian soldiers will die. The question is in what ratio? The evidence is that Ukraine is losing soldiers faster than Russia. So the weapons sent by the West are guaranteeing Ukrainians die in droves.
Oh, I thought Russia just wanted to protect the Sudeten? That’s what I usually hear :) Nato has nothing to do with it. I don’t know what stoltenberg said and how it was taken out of context, but NATO is an organisation to which countries apply. Nobody is forcing them to join (except the threat of Russian invasion).
Ukraine is not that small and Ukraine would fight if it gets the weapons or not,because they are fighting for themselves. Likely less will die when they have something to fight with.
The actual evidence shows that Ukraine is losing far less people than Russia. One of the most evident proofs is the oryx report of lost hardware. It had it’s flaws but I think it’s very relevant. The leaked US report about two months ago has Ukraine at about 70k dead and Russia at 120k.