The article makes exactly the same arguments, russian trolls are making.
I don’t know the publication, but this article for sure is not quality content that would bring any value. Its just regurgitation of Russian trolls.
It’s as if the arguments “Russian trolls” as you call them have been making are the actual reality, while you’ve been guzzling propaganda out of a fire hose. The fact that you still can’t understand that Ukraine lost the war highlights just what an utter imbecile you really are.
This has been my perception all along. I don’t really get how anybody thought Ukraine could win. In expressing this opinion, you’re labeled as a Putin puppet. You don’t have to be pro-Russia to say that they are winning.
I’m hopeful that the war comes to a close soon though.
Anybody capable of thinking about the situation objectively understood this from the start. As you say though, most people are unable to have a rational discussion on the subject because they’re emotionally invested in the war.
I have no idea what your are taking about, but we trekkies are against violent conquest, against violence itself. However defending ourselves and weaker peoples is a whole other matter. We are on the side of the oppressed and subjugated and are willing to stand up for them. I’m pretty sure they are satisfied with everything I have said.
You are free to comment on my opinions, please do , but attacking me personally, that doesn’t come out as serious.
What you want is a “debate”, and I’m not giving it to you. I don’t take any settler who fixes their face to say “russian bot” without an iota of irony seriously, to be frank. Not one of you are worth the effort honest discourse takes as it currently stands. If you want the veneer of legitimacy, maybe try being legitimate first.
Your profile picture (at time of writing) is literally a Russian cosmonaut. Your bias is showing. (Pretty sure your profile banner is from Russian propaganda too, though I’m sure you’ll correct me if that’s untrue.)
But I suppose that does make you more overt and honest. Not necessarily right, but definitely honest.
(Unless you’re an anti-Russian double-bluff. I can’t profess to be an expert on the psychology of this sort of thing.)
Are you somehow closer to the truth, or are you, like the rest of us, getting news from various sources and making your own mind up?
Because if so, my ad hominem kind of applies to all of us internet forum idiots and armchair politicians. Those of us without obvious declarations in our profiles could be argued to be the stealth ones, trying to swing people this way and that with who knows what agenda.
Why do we reach the conclusions we do anyway? Do we stand to gain anything?
At least in your case, it seems more obvious why you do, wearing your colours on your sleeve (metaphorically speaking) as you do.
If you would like an inkling of why I think the way I do: I’m never in favour of it when a larger power goes in, guns blazing, to override a smaller one, like there’s literally no other way. And they always, always go too far, refuse to back down, and a huge number of people die senselessly because some ideologue thinks that a lesson needs to be taught. (Curiously, the ideologues themselves tend to be a long, long way from the bullets.)
It’s happened in history so many times. My own damn country has been the aggressor. It wasn’t right then, and it’s not right when it’s done now.
Please note that you literally cannot tell which conflict I’m talking about here. There’s at least three.
Our Focus: The National Interest is an award-winning online publication focusing on defense issues, national security, military affairs and hardware, foreign policy, and U.S. politics.
The National Interest was founded in 1985.
Transparency Statement:
The National Interest is owned and operated by the Center for the National Interest, founded in 1994 by U.S. President Richard M. Nixon.
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.
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.
This is likely an AI Russian propaganda article.
Ah yes, National Interest, a famous Russian propaganda outlet. Get yourself checked from brain worms ASAP.
The article makes exactly the same arguments, russian trolls are making. I don’t know the publication, but this article for sure is not quality content that would bring any value. Its just regurgitation of Russian trolls.
It’s as if the arguments “Russian trolls” as you call them have been making are the actual reality, while you’ve been guzzling propaganda out of a fire hose. The fact that you still can’t understand that Ukraine lost the war highlights just what an utter imbecile you really are.
This has been my perception all along. I don’t really get how anybody thought Ukraine could win. In expressing this opinion, you’re labeled as a Putin puppet. You don’t have to be pro-Russia to say that they are winning.
I’m hopeful that the war comes to a close soon though.
Anybody capable of thinking about the situation objectively understood this from the start. As you say though, most people are unable to have a rational discussion on the subject because they’re emotionally invested in the war.
Ah, how refreshing to see someone coming out as a deranged putinversteher asshole from the start, without wasting my time.
Toodles!
I honestly feel like some trekkie should’ve pulled your card already 'cause you’re giving them a very fashy name right now
I have no idea what your are taking about, but we trekkies are against violent conquest, against violence itself. However defending ourselves and weaker peoples is a whole other matter. We are on the side of the oppressed and subjugated and are willing to stand up for them. I’m pretty sure they are satisfied with everything I have said.
You are free to comment on my opinions, please do , but attacking me personally, that doesn’t come out as serious.
What you want is a “debate”, and I’m not giving it to you. I don’t take any settler who fixes their face to say “russian bot” without an iota of irony seriously, to be frank. Not one of you are worth the effort honest discourse takes as it currently stands. If you want the veneer of legitimacy, maybe try being legitimate first.
I have no idea what you just said. I don’t know who settlers are, who “we” are supposed to be and what legitimacy you are looking for.
I’ll just take a wild prediction that is better for me not knowing.
Have a nice day. Goodbye.
lmao bye troll
Your profile picture (at time of writing) is literally a Russian cosmonaut. Your bias is showing. (Pretty sure your profile banner is from Russian propaganda too, though I’m sure you’ll correct me if that’s untrue.)
But I suppose that does make you more overt and honest. Not necessarily right, but definitely honest.
(Unless you’re an anti-Russian double-bluff. I can’t profess to be an expert on the psychology of this sort of thing.)
Thanks for providing us with a great example of using ad hominem in lieu of having an actual argument.
Are you somehow closer to the truth, or are you, like the rest of us, getting news from various sources and making your own mind up?
Because if so, my ad hominem kind of applies to all of us internet forum idiots and armchair politicians. Those of us without obvious declarations in our profiles could be argued to be the stealth ones, trying to swing people this way and that with who knows what agenda.
Why do we reach the conclusions we do anyway? Do we stand to gain anything?
At least in your case, it seems more obvious why you do, wearing your colours on your sleeve (metaphorically speaking) as you do.
If you would like an inkling of why I think the way I do: I’m never in favour of it when a larger power goes in, guns blazing, to override a smaller one, like there’s literally no other way. And they always, always go too far, refuse to back down, and a huge number of people die senselessly because some ideologue thinks that a lesson needs to be taught. (Curiously, the ideologues themselves tend to be a long, long way from the bullets.)
It’s happened in history so many times. My own damn country has been the aggressor. It wasn’t right then, and it’s not right when it’s done now.
Please note that you literally cannot tell which conflict I’m talking about here. There’s at least three.
You cant be serious lmao
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-interest/
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.
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!
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.
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.
Your comment 10m after the post hit the new feed is likely an AI USA propaganda comment.
I apologise lemmy served me this article so quickly. I would be OK without seeing it at all.
All I hear is “beep boop kill all humans” lol
You should get that checked out.