both can be true, in the microcosm of the war of course regular Ukrainians have agency but on the grand scheme they were useful idiots for Washington.
Your claim that Ukrainians are merely “doing the fighting and dying” under US and NATO direction, citing George Soros’s 1993 essay, is both a misinterpretation and a profound insult to the bravery and autonomy of the Ukrainian people.
In the essay, Soros discussed the potential for integrating Eastern European manpower with NATO’s technical capabilities to enhance collective security. This proposal aimed to create a more balanced and cooperative defense structure in the post-Cold War era, not to relegate Eastern Europeans to the role of expendable forces. Soros emphasized the importance of political and economic collaboration to support emerging democracies, with military considerations being just one facet of a comprehensive strategy.
Since Russia’s unprovoked invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience and independence in defending its sovereignty. The Ukrainian government and armed forces have made strategic decisions, leading successful counteroffensives and reclaiming occupied territories. Their determination has not only defied global expectations but has also galvanized international support.
Your remarks diminish the profound sacrifices made by Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. The resilience of Ukrainians is evident not only on the battlefield but also in their daily lives. Civilians have engaged in acts of defiance, from producing essential military supplies to maintaining cultural institutions under siege. To reduce their struggle to mere pawns in a geopolitical game is an affront to their courage and agency.
It is imperative to approach discussions about such critical matters with a well-informed perspective. Recognizing the agency and bravery of the Ukrainian people is not only a matter of accuracy but also of respect. Mischaracterizations not only distort the truth but also unjustly belittle the experiences of those enduring the hardships of war.
All those who defend a free world should acknowledge the undeniable evidence of Ukraine’s sovereign efforts and the extraordinary bravery of its people. Let us honor their sacrifices by portraying their struggle with the dignity and respect it unequivocally deserves.
bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 3 days ago
Bloomcole@lemmy.world 3 days ago
thanks chat GTP I hope your AI isn’t conscious and won’t be offended when I don’t read your BS essay
Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I took the time to look up the Soros essay, identify the quote to gather context, and craft a thoughtful response. GPTs are a tool—some use them to replace thinking, but the wise use them to enhance it. I stand by every word I wrote.
Your response, on the other hand, dismisses an argument you didn’t even bother to engage with. Instead of refuting my points, you crafted a strawman to wave away the discussion entirely. That speaks volumes—not about AI, but about you.
I didn’t use any AI to write this reply. But something tells me that doesn’t matter to you in the slightest.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world 2 days ago
ChatGTP is shit.
It is wildly unreliable at best and often straight up lying and giving misinformation.
The irony that you call yourself wise for using it. LOL
I did waste precious seconds reading the first lines before I noticed your cheap trickery.
If I recall it mentioned context, as you do this time.
A little story about ‘context’ and factcheckers.
Probably ShitGPT got the mustard there.
I almost didn’t believe the appauling Soros quote the first time it got mentioned to me so I factchecked, since I’m wise.
One of the results was from one of those respectable, totally unbiased don’t fall for Ruzzia propaganda! factcheckers.
Title:“Did Soros say this? Answer: no”
When you read the rest of this garbage they mention in fact that he did literally say this but “we have to look at the context and then we have to say he didn’t”.
Which is sometimes a valid argument.
Only problem, there was zero context to misunderstand or interpret this. So basically another lie to cover their first lie.
But anyway enough about this quote. There’s plenty of evidence for decades the US wanted this to happen. But something tells me that doesn’t matter to you in the slightest.
Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Ah, the classic approach: dismiss, insult, deflect, and avoid any actual debate. Instead of engaging with the content, you ridicule the tool I used to refine my response—conveniently ignoring that I did my own research before ever consulting it. You also claim to value context while simultaneously insisting that a single sentence in a decades-old essay should be taken as gospel without any consideration for its broader meaning or intent."
“Your ‘fact-checker anecdote’ is particularly amusing, since it ironically proves my point. Context is precisely what separates informed discussion from cherry-picked outrage. But of course, why wrestle with complexity when you can just claim ‘there’s plenty of evidence’ without citing a single source? That’s not wisdom—it’s just lazy.”
"And yes, something does tell me that none of this will matter to you in the slightest. But at least I have the courtesy of engaging with ideas instead of hiding behind sneering dismissals. Enjoy the illusion of superiority—it’s the only argument you seem interested in making.