MOSCOW (AP) — Russian troops launched their anticipated attack on Ukraine on Thursday, as President Vladimir Putin cast aside international condemnation and sanctions, warning other countries that any attempt to interfere would lead to “consequences you have never seen.”
We’ll get to that, if you want an hour long tedious point by point debate where you constantly argue definitions and split differences.
But first, what I’m telling you know is that “oh, so you didn’t want me to look at the facts” is a totally obtuse and disingenuous paraphrase and a signal that nobody on Lemmy should bother trying to reason with you, because you aren’t willing to try.
Somehow the rest of the world, including everyone you were arguing with, were able to see it from the same set of “tHe FaCtS” and see the obvious and you weren’t, and you don’t want to do any self-reflection unless lead by the nose through god knows how many tedious paragraphs of details, fighting every step of the way. More responsible people, such as Nina Kruscheva are able to do that on their own.
What I’m telling you is that Russia was getting what they wanted without the need to invade. The facts are that western powers were engaged in active diplomacy with Russia, and that Ukrainian economy was crashing. Simply recognizing Donbas republics and waiting would’ve worked in Russia’s favor in the long term. Please explain to me what specifically you claim to be at odds with the facts in that assessment.
Actually invading Ukraine will clearly destroy any chance for diplomacy between Russia and Europe and help galvanize NATO. I personally don’t see how this is to Russia’s benefit, but again perhaps you can explain to me why I was deluded to think that.
Despite all your bloviating here, you haven’t actually said a single thing of substance. You just keep repeating how “ThE ReSt Of tHe WoRLd” came to a different conclusion, without explaining the basis for it.
Replying to me by saying “oh so you didn’t want me to look at the facts” is a completely disingenuous and juvenile equivocation over ordinary terminology.
It’s a signal that you are not even trying to engage in good faith. If people on Lemmy saw nothing other than this chain of comments it would be sufficient reason to never engage with you.
There was no name calling. he said that yogthos made a “completely disingenuous and juvenile equivocation” and that he’s “not even trying to engage in good faith”.
The answer to the question of “I’m not sure what self-reflection you’re suggesting I should be doing here” is that he should reevaluate all of his supposed facts and justifications made by the Kremlin because they’re probably lies…
I replied to you saying that based on the available facts it looked like the repercussions for Russia invading Ukraine would be undesirable. Meanwhile, working diplomatically with the west would produce the results that Russia wanted. Obviously I’m not omniscient, and I was clearly wrong in my assessment. However, I once again ask you to explain why you’re insisting that my assessment was wrong based on what was known at the time.
Seems to me that you’re the one being extremely disingenuous here given that you refuse to address the actual points I made.
We’ll get to that, if you want an hour long tedious point by point debate where you constantly argue definitions and split differences.
But first, what I’m telling you know is that “oh, so you didn’t want me to look at the facts” is a totally obtuse and disingenuous paraphrase and a signal that nobody on Lemmy should bother trying to reason with you, because you aren’t willing to try.
Somehow the rest of the world, including everyone you were arguing with, were able to see it from the same set of “tHe FaCtS” and see the obvious and you weren’t, and you don’t want to do any self-reflection unless lead by the nose through god knows how many tedious paragraphs of details, fighting every step of the way. More responsible people, such as Nina Kruscheva are able to do that on their own.
What I’m telling you is that Russia was getting what they wanted without the need to invade. The facts are that western powers were engaged in active diplomacy with Russia, and that Ukrainian economy was crashing. Simply recognizing Donbas republics and waiting would’ve worked in Russia’s favor in the long term. Please explain to me what specifically you claim to be at odds with the facts in that assessment.
Actually invading Ukraine will clearly destroy any chance for diplomacy between Russia and Europe and help galvanize NATO. I personally don’t see how this is to Russia’s benefit, but again perhaps you can explain to me why I was deluded to think that.
Despite all your bloviating here, you haven’t actually said a single thing of substance. You just keep repeating how “ThE ReSt Of tHe WoRLd” came to a different conclusion, without explaining the basis for it.
Replying to me by saying “oh so you didn’t want me to look at the facts” is a completely disingenuous and juvenile equivocation over ordinary terminology.
It’s a signal that you are not even trying to engage in good faith. If people on Lemmy saw nothing other than this chain of comments it would be sufficient reason to never engage with you.
Stop the name calling and answer the question
I replied to you saying that based on the available facts it looked like the repercussions for Russia invading Ukraine would be undesirable. Meanwhile, working diplomatically with the west would produce the results that Russia wanted. Obviously I’m not omniscient, and I was clearly wrong in my assessment. However, I once again ask you to explain why you’re insisting that my assessment was wrong based on what was known at the time.
Seems to me that you’re the one being extremely disingenuous here given that you refuse to address the actual points I made.