And you know better than Jeffrey Sachs because...? — Isaac

To say the least, because anybody can listen to what Naftali Bennett ACTUALLY said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs&t=10774s

Nafatali Bennett's claim is not about why "Then, one day, the Ukrainians [stopped the negotiations]."
but about why his mediation at the beginning of the war was stopped.

Nafatali Bennett's claim is not about why "Then, one day, the Ukrainians [stopped the negotiations]."
but about why his mediation at the beginning of the war was stopped. — neomac

And you know better than Jeffrey Sachs because...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6lzqTScDUs

And you know better than Jeffrey Sachs because...? — Isaac

And you know better than Naftali Bennett because...?

And you are better than Naftali Bennett because? — neomac

I'm not claiming either he or you are factually wrong though, am I?

I'm taking issue with @ssu's response which frames his opinion as being what "really" happened, and what "in fact..." is the case.

Jeffrey Sachs is neither an idiot, nor a liar, so clearly there is room for more than one legitimate interpretation of the facts.

I'm quite happy to accept more than one legitimate interpretation and have only ever asked for reasons why people prefer one over the other. My dispute here is entirely over this utterly ludicrous sense of self-righteous aggrandisement that seems to promote this attitude that there's only one obviously 'true' theory and all others must be deliberately misleading for some insinuated goal.

Interviewer: "So they blocked it?"

Naftali Bennett: "Basically, yes. They blocked it and I thought they're wrong. In retrospect it's too soon to know.

[Naftali Bennett lists a number of disadvantages of continuing the war, and then continues...]

On the other hand, and I'm not being cynical, there's a statement here, after very many years. President Biden created an alliance vis-à-vis an aggressor in the general perception and this reflects on other arenas, such as China and Taiwan and there are consequences."

And you are better than Naftali Bennett because? — neomac


I'm not claiming either he or you are factually wrong though, am I?

I'm taking issue with ssu's response which frames his opinion as being what "really" happened, and what "in fact..." is the case.

Jeffrey Sachs is neither an idiot, nor a liar, so clearly there is room for more than one legitimate interpretation of the facts. — Isaac

No no, I'm claiming that I am RIGHT and you are WRONG AND DISHONEST. I don't need to believe that Jeffrey Sucks is an idiot or a liar, I'm claiming that what Naftali Bennett ACTUALLY said in the interview IS NOT TALKING ABOUT "Then, one day, the Ukrainians [stopped the negotiations]." as SSU was objecting to but about his mediation being stopped.

I'm quite happy to accept more than one legitimate interpretation — Isaac

And I'm happy to call your interpretation WRONG AND DISHONEST whenever I believe it's the case.

Interviewer: "So they blocked it?"

Naftali Bennett: "Basically, yes. They blocked it and I thought they're wrong. In retrospect it's too soon to know.

[Naftali Bennett lists a number of disadvantages of continuing the war, and then continues...]

On the other hand, and I'm not being cynical, there's a statement here, after very many years. President Biden created an alliance vis-à-vis an aggressor in the general perception and this reflects on other arenas, such as China and Taiwan and there are consequences."

Are you playing dumb? You reported the claim "Then, one day, the Ukrainians [stopped the negotiations]." which then cited Naftali Bennett in support of it which is what SSU was questioning with his comment. I gave you the link to the youtube video (here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK9tLDeWBzs&t=10774s). Listen to the interview, Naftali Bennett IS NOT TALKING ABOUT "Then, one day, the Ukrainians [stopped the negotiations]." but about his mediation being stopped (quite interesting what he also says later). Focus on what I'm actually objecting to you not on what you wish I objected to you.

Jeffrey Sachs is neither an idiot, nor a liar, so clearly there is room for more than one legitimate interpretation of the facts. — Isaac

Jeffrey Sachs from the very beginning of the conflict blamed it on the US and claimed that the only reason for the war is the NATO expansion. Also, he strongly advised for 'territory for peace' scheme even before the talks collapsed. That might influence his interpretation of later events.

Jeffrey Sachs from the very beginning of the conflict blamed it on the US and claimed that the only reason for the war is the NATO expansion. Also, he strongly advised for 'territory for peace' scheme even before the talks collapsed. — Jabberwock

And...?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

If an intelligent, well informed person thought from the very beginning of the conflict the US were to blame, then it's plausible that indeed from very beginning of the conflict the US were to blame. Unless you've got something which makes you smarter or better informed than Jeffrey Sachs, then you have to accept his position as plausible.

Likewise, if an intelligent, well informed person thought the only reason for the war is the NATO expansion, then it's plausible that indeed the only reason for the war is the NATO expansion. Unless you've got something which makes you smarter or better informed than Jeffrey Sachs, then you have to accept his position as plausible.

So given those two plausible positions, how does being consistent with them make a third position suspect?

You're basically arguing that is suspicious when people's theories are consistent.

I am pointing out that having particularly strong views on the issue might influence his account, so it is a somewhat questionable to portray him as 'independent' witness of the events.

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1680499284611932160

"Gerasimov and Shoigu should be held responsible for the genocide of the Russian people, the murder of tens of thousands of Russian citizens and surrender of Russian territories to the enemy. And this was intentional, just like the murder of Russian citizens and genocide."
(from the neo-nazi Utkin with exquisite ironic feinting love)

Why is thinking the US are to blame a 'strong' view, but thinking they are not to blame not? Views are surely either more or less well thought out and evidenced. Since you're not claiming to be either smarter than, nor better informed than Jeffrey Sachs, you can't raise a justified criticism of either.

What about that view makes it 'stronger' than, say, the view of David Frum?

You can strike out 'strong', if you find adjectives offensive. The facts remains that the report that the peace deal was almost ready and it was blocked by the US is from a guy who before publicly claimed it is all the US fault and that the only way out is by peace negotiations. He knows it indirectly from 'some people involved', but the only source he actually did name he reported somewhat inaccurately, as it appears. Bennett paints a rather different and quite nuanced picture, and while he does say there was a good chance for the ceasefire, he thinks it might not be the best solution.

EDIT: I have previously quoted that it was Putin that renounced NATO, as it was not clear from the fragment I have seen, in fact it was Zelensky.

Juicy fruits of the no-limits alliance between the peaceful China and Russia against the greedy Nazi pro-LGBT Neocapitalist imperial vampires which holy Putin is so powerfully leading (with Mearsheimer's blessing): https://www.eurasiantimes.com/fact-check-has-china-really-claimed-russian-port-city-of-vladivostok/

Jeffrey Sachs is an economist, actually. And has written about povetry. And now is rather famous for his pro-Russian and pro-Chinese views.

And the reality is that the war has gone forward from Feb-March 2022 and so has the situation on the ground. Hence then to take the stance that early on ”the US stopped the peace negitiations” is basically pro-Russian propaganda because a lot has happened after and I just showed there’s a lot more to this question than just what discussiions mr Sachs has had. Things like Russia annexing even more land to itself from Ukraine was very important here.

And furthermore, you or Tzeentch have not answered my question on just what terms would have then Russia negotiated a peace deal when it was still engaged in the battle of Kyiv, advancing in the south and Russians were jubilantly showing the ”Z”-sign for supporting the war.

I thnk there’s a lot of good answers here of just why it is odd to cling on to these kind of fringe ideas about why the war is still going on.

I thnk there’s a lot of good answers here ↪Jabberwock of just why it is odd to cling on to these kind of fringe ideas about why the war is still going on. — ssu

People have their reasons for believing things that seem really weird to the rest of us.

Common sense, being one.

Common sense, being one. — Tzeentch

Possibly :lol:

Your right. It isn’t odd.

And if we would be discussing war that was in Afghanistan or the war still continuing in Yemen etc, suddenly we would have a lot to agree with.

And if we would be discussing war that was in Afghanistan or the war still continuing in Yemen etc, suddenly we would have a lot to agree with. — ssu

Of course. :up:

Seems that the Ukrainians attacked the Kerch bridge again.

The facts remains that the report that the peace deal was almost ready and it was blocked by the US is from a guy who before publicly claimed it is all the US fault and that the only way out is by peace negotiations. — Jabberwock

Right. So you're back so claiming that if people's theories are consistent that's grounds for suspicion.

the only source he actually did name he reported somewhat inaccurately — Jabberwock

Can you cite where he says he reported him inaccurately?

(Let's speed this section up. No. You can't cite where he says he reported him somewhat inaccurately because he don't think he did. You do. You have difference of opinion on the matter. Citing your own opinion isn't evidence against someone else's is it?)

effrey Sachs is an economist, actually. And has written about povetry. And now is rather famous for his pro-Russian and pro-Chinese views. — ssu

What do you mean "actually"? I haven't said he isn't any of those things.

the reality — ssu

Seriously, if you're just going to preface everything you say with "the reality...2 there's little point in discussing anything with you. You're' not the fucking Oracle of Delphi, you haven't got God-like insight into 'reality'. People disagree. If you're not prepared to accept disagreement, then what the fuck are you doing on a discussion site? Start a blog.

Seems that the Ukrainians attacked the Kerch bridge again. — ssu

Why don't they sneak in and attach bombs to the columns? Boom!

Right. So you're back so claiming that if people's theories are consistent that's grounds for suspicion. — Isaac

No, I am claiming that if people are biased (and Sachs clearly is), then we should not treat their reports as 'independent', as Tzeentch claimed.

Can you cite where he says he reported him inaccurately? — Isaac

Now you are just confused... I did not say that he said that he reported him inaccurately, I wrote that he reported him inaccurately. He said that Bennet said that the US stopped it, which is not what Bennett said.

:up:

No, I am claiming that if people are biased (and Sachs clearly is), then we should not treat their reports as 'independent', as Tzeentch claimed. — Jabberwock

What an ignorant thing to say.

He said that Bennet said that the US stopped it, which is not what Bennett said. — Jabberwock

It's exactly what he said:

Naftali Bennett: Everything I did was coordinated down to the last detail, with the US, Germany and France.

Interviewer: So they blocked it?

Naftali Bennett: Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they were wrong.

The level of intellectual dishonesty here is truly astonishing.

Or perhaps you're all experiencing the first stage of grief?

if people are biased (and Sachs clearly is) — Jabberwock

Clearly, how? What evidence do you have of his bias?

I did not say that he said that he reported him inaccurately, I wrote that he reported him inaccurately. — Jabberwock

In your opinion.

Christ! what is happening to people. Are you really so egotistical that you cannot even conceive of the idea of being wrong? Is everything you happen to think just a 'fact' to you?

What an ignorant thing to say. — Tzeentch

What an unimpressive rhetorical flourish, devoid of any substance. You do have a tendency to do that, when you run out of arguments.

The level of intellectual dishonesty here is truly astonishing. — Tzeentch

'They blocked it' and 'The US blocked it' are not exactly the same, are they? Especially when Bennett says that Johnson was the agressive one, Scholz and Macron 'pragmatic' ones and Biden a bit of both.

Oh, I'm sure the US was mighty interested to hear what Johnson had to say about peace in Ukraine. :lol:

Chirst, these people.

Clearly, how? What evidence do you have of his bias? — Isaac

His previous declarations and articles, such as this one.

In your opinion.

Christ! what is happening to people. Are you really so egotistical that you cannot even conceive of the idea of being wrong? Is everything you think just a 'fact' to you? — Isaac

Of course, in my opinion. Just like everything you write is 'in your opinion'. Yet you do not prepend each and every post of yours with those words, why?