Comment on Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating

• surph_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  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:

  jeffsachs.org/…/s6ap8hxhp34hg252wtwwwtdw4afw7x?fo…

  source

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Take your pick. You very broadly denied western involvement, and this delves into the details.

      That quote actually makes my point. Not yours.

      source

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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.

        source
  • Lumbardo@reddthat.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      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.

      source
• AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Bro you just expect me to look at a primary source after copying and pasting a wikipedia article? how do you think internet arguments work??

  source

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      It’s the same as saying source: a whole book.

      Grow the fuck up and learn how to chew your own food, baby bird.

      source

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments