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.
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. 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. 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.
You should watch this Jeffrey Sachs interview. He’s also wrote a number of articles delving into the details.
https://youtu.be/23mMpACix_E
>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.
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.
Grow the fuck up and learn how to chew your own food, baby bird.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
Do share where I “broadly denied western involvement”.
For reference, your point:
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.