Perhaps the sneaking in part isn’t so easy?Why don't they sneak in and attach bombs to the columns? Boom! — frank
His previous declarations and articles, such as this one. — Jabberwock
Of course, in my opinion. — Jabberwock
What about them is biased? I can't believe I'm having to explain this to grown adults, but simply saying things you don't agree with isn't bias. — Isaac
Right. So are you smarter or better informed than Jeffrey Sachs. Which is it? What makes you think your personal opinion on a matter you're not even qualified in makes a person you've never met "clearly" biased? — Isaac
You do realise how ridiculous you sound here, wading into the complexities of international negotiations as if you've got a better grasp of the situation than someone who actually spoke directly to sources involved in it. — Isaac
↪Tzeentch
You can be sure of whatever you want, still Bennett did not say what Sachs attributed to him. — Jabberwock
I know Zelensky very well, and I know Putin very well, even better. And I had a good relationship, very good with both of them. I would tell Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal. I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we are going to give him [Zelensky] a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to. I will have the deal done in one day. One day.
My own opinion leans towards the US not being very serious. They have too strong an interest in continuing this war. — Mikie
is a meaningful peace agreement possible? My answer is no. We are now in a war where both sides – Ukraine and the West on one side and Russia on the other – see each other as an existential threat that must be defeated. Given maximalist objectives all around, it is almost impossible to reach a workable peace treaty. Moreover, the two sides have irreconcilable differences regarding territory and Ukraine’s relationship with the West. The best possible outcome is a frozen conflict that could easily turn back into a hot war. The worst possible outcome is a nuclear war, which is unlikely but cannot be ruled out.
My guess is that the missiles or rockets they use simply don’t pack the punch to demolish such large structures. Yes, it would need demolition charges at precise points to get part of the bridge to splash into the water. — ssu
They need James Bond to snorkel over there and blow that shit up. — frank
My own opinion leans towards the US not being very serious. They have too strong an interest in continuing this war. — Mikie
Their military support is good for the powerful arms industry, and there’s apparently little willingness to engage in serious peace negotiations. — Mikie
What will happen to food prices? [...] — RogueAI
Ahhh!!! The deep insightful wisdom of Jeffrey Sachs, Mearsheimer & co.
We are not worthy! — ssu
he ignores the fact that Russia maintains agressive and divisive policy toward all of former USSR republics that try to leave its sphere of influence, such as Moldova (which is not seeking NATO membership, as its neutrality is included in its constitution) in exactly same way, by stirring up unrest among the Russian minorities and sending troops to 'protect' the breakaway enclaves. It does it exactly the same way whether the former republic seeks membership in NATO or not - it is Russia's way of keeping them in its sphere of influence. — Jabberwock
It goes back to the promises of non-expansion of NATO in 1991, completely ignoring the fact that since then Russia and NATO have established several cooperation frameworks - the latest in 2002 (with Putin), which ended in a joint declaration and establishment of the NATO-Russia Council. — Jabberwock
He claims that 'During 2010-2013, Yanukovych pushed neutrality, in line with Ukrainian public opinion'. That is simply not true - Yanukovych was obliged by the popular vote and by his promises to seek integration with the EU (European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement). — Jabberwock
That was what sparked the protests, not the US scheming. The 'scheming' was the nervous reaction, as the US was clearly caught off the guard. Sachs writes 'weeks before the violent overthrow', which sounds ominous if you do not add that it was months after the protests have started. — Jabberwock
One of his most telling omissions is the quote from Arestovich: 'that our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia'. He forgot to add that in the next sentence Arestovich adds: 'And if we don't join NATO, it is gonna be Russian takeover within 10-12 years'. It does change the meaning a bit, does it not, when it is not the choice between war and peace, as Sachs maintains, but war and war? — Jabberwock
Russia has invaded Crimea unprovoked, breaching Ukraine's sovereignty and the Budapest Memorandum (which Sachs, conveniently, of course does not mention). It had also nothing to do with NATO. — Jabberwock
just pointing out that I have good reasons for MY OPINION that he is clearly biased. — Jabberwock
And maintaining a strong 'sphere of influence' is a perfectly rational response to having that sphere threatened. — Isaac
Again, he doesn't ignore it, he just doesn't share your view of the significance of such absences. — Isaac
Yanukovych promised a "balanced policy, which will protect our national interests both on our eastern border – I mean with Russia – and of course with the European Union". — Isaac
Sach's point is not about the other factors. He's not an historian, he's not writing a textbook account. — Isaac
No. again Sach's point isn't how hard it was for Ukraine trapped between a rock and a hard place — Isaac
The fact that not doing so might lead to something else undesirable is irrelevant — Isaac
Now you're getting ridiculous. 'Unprovoked' and 'nothing to do with' are the very questions at hand. As I've mentioned before bias doesn't mean 'disagrees with me'. — Isaac
Sachs' thesis is that if not for 'agressive NATO push by the US', everything would be peaceful. — Jabberwock
that is exactly what bias is - accepting only those facts that support your thesis and rejecting all other facts as irrelevant. — Jabberwock
he reneged on that promise AGAINST the public opinion, not in line with it, contrary to what Sachs says. — Jabberwock
Presenting ONLY those facts that support your thesis and ignoring the outweighing facts that significantly question it is not 'focus'. — Jabberwock
No, Sachs explicit point is that if the US did not seek agressively Ukraine's NATO membership, there would be no war. Arestovich says just the opposite in the very quote he provides. — Jabberwock
The fact that not joining NATO would LEAD TO WAR ANYWAY is irrelevant to Sachs' main thesis: 'The key to peace in Ukraine is through negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality and NATO non-enlargement'? — Jabberwock
He pretends he never said that. — Jabberwock
No it isn't. If it were it would be ridiculous and Jeffrey Sachs is a well respected academic, named one of the "500 Most Influential People in the Field of Foreign Policy" by the World Affairs Councils of America. Does he sound like the sort of person who is likely to propose a ridiculous theory that a complete layman such as yourself is able to spot the flaws in?
Seriously. Which is more likely; you've misunderstood the argument, or one of the most influential people in the world, in the field of foreign policy has made a ridiculous argument? — Isaac
No. Nobody in the world simply includes 'all the facts there are' in every thesis. That's absurd. Every person selects the facts they consider relevant. You disagree with Sachs about which facts are relevant. And again, in such a disagreement, who is most likely to be right, given Sachs's qualifications? — Isaac
Sachs does not make the argument that reneging on the promise of neutrality was inline with public opinion. — Isaac
The argument is that Russia reacted to foreign interference. Local protest is not foreign interference, so it has no bearing on that argument. It's just some other thing that's also true. Theses do not routinely list all other things that also happen to be true. — Isaac
In what form of ethics is, say, murder condoned on the grounds that "someone else was going to murder them later anyway". Sachs is making the argument that the US provoked this war and could have not. What else Russia might have done in 10 years is irrelevant to that argument. It is possible that US actions could also help (or hinder) the chances of this 'takeover'. — Isaac
Yes. Sachs obviously disagrees with the certainty of Arestovych's prediction (which is about takeover, not necessarily war). Something he is perfectly qualified to do being an expert in foreign affairs. A judgment you are not qualified to make being no such expert. As a partisan political adviser, it is entirely appropriate that Sachs filter what he says. If you're looking for biased sources, the chief political adviser from one of the parties in the conflict is about as good as you'll get. — Isaac
Selecting part of a quote is not 'pretending he never said' the rest of it. You're being absurd. One does not have to repeat entire conversations verbatim to avoid bias. The only reason you know all this is because Sachs cites the whole fucking interview. In whst crazy world is providing a direct link to the entire interview "pretending he never said that"? — Isaac
But let's says Sachs is biased. He's selectively ignored facts which don't match his theory.
You're not engaged in primary research. So from where do you get your information? Are you confident that an equal assessment of your chosen sources is going to show them revealing all facts (even those which work against their arguments)?
Let's have an example of an unbiased source you use and see where they treat data that doesn't match their theory. — Isaac
I was reading an article that said Europeans are presently becoming more hawkish about Russia than the US is, which is probably as it should be. Putin is their problem more than an American one, right? — frank
Germans, French and Italians - yes, the spell of the inexplicable infatuation with Russia seems to lift. — Jabberwock
The Dutch are obviously vengeful. — Jabberwock
Eastern Europeans, of course, had the doubtful pleasure of interacting with Russia for the past few centuries, so they are aware of the 'problem'. They scrambled to be in NATO, against the objections of the West, as they were painfully aware that sooner or later Russia will turn to them again. — Jabberwock
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.