You can be sure of whatever you want, still Bennett did not say what Sachs attributed to him.

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

Perhaps the sneaking in part isn’t so easy?

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.

His previous declarations and articles, such as this one. — 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.

Of course, in my opinion. — Jabberwock

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?

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.

So are you smarter or better informed than Jeffrey Sachs. Which is it? — Isaac

Ahhh!!! The deep insightful wisdom of Jeffrey Sachs, Mearsheimer & co.

We are not worthy!

Handing the Kremlin control of all of Ukraine('s grain + fertilizer + processing + transport) doesn't seem the best (Jun 16, 2023, Jul 1, 2023).

UN asks Putin to extend Black Sea grain deal in return for SWIFT access, sources say
^{— Michelle Nichols, Kanishka Singh, Mark Heinrich, Diane Craft · Reuters · Jul 12, 2023}
Russian Agricultural Bank may be connected to SWIFT for payments under grain deal — source
^{— TASS · Jul 13, 2023}
Russia halts participation in Black Sea grain deal: Kremlin
^{— Al Jazeera · Jul 17, 2023}
Russia says decision not to extend Black Sea grain deal is final
^{— Patrick Wintour, Shaun Walker · The Guardian · Jul 17, 2023}

UN EU UK officials pointed out the hostage-holding-alike politicization of the situation by the Kremlin.
(Don't know about others, but I expected a deal of sorts to come through like it had in the past.)

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

The bias, IN MY OPINION, is shown in how he presents only those facts that suit his theory. I do not think it is the best place to dissect the whole article, I will point out the biggest ommisions:
1. First 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.
2. 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. Somehow, Putin in his address seems quite satisfied with the results and prospects of the cooperation - five years after the supposed promise was broken and during the period when the Baltics were actively seeking NATO membership. He does not demand stopping further expansion, in fact, he does not even mention it, which is quite curious, given that the Membership Action Plans were established for the Baltic States in 1999 and their invitation to NATO was imminent. The Council worked even when Shevardnadze declared the intention of Georgia to join NATO in November 2002. So it seems that in 2002 Putin could not care less about the old promise of 1991. Sachs conveniently does not mention any of that. Nor does he mention the Budapest Memorandum, which seems to carry a bit more weight than an informal promise to Gorbachev.
3. 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). He reneged on that promise and decided to seek closer ties with Russia. 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. He also writes that the US installed a Russophobic regime in Ukraine... However, he forgot to mention that the 'regime' meanwhile has lost the elections (considered to be fair by OSCE), as Zelensky had more popular support in the east of Ukraine.
4. 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?
5. He writes: 'After Yanukovych’s overthrow, the war broke out in the Donbas, while Russia claimed Crimea'. While technically true, again it is the omissions that count. 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. 'The war broke out' is also rather misleading, considering that the revolt was organized by Russians under the leadership of Girkin. Sachs does not mention any of that, which is not surprising, given that in 2014 the prospects of Ukraine joining NATO were rather dim.

That is just a sample... So yes, IT IS MY OPINION that the article shows he is biased.

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

No, I do not claim that I am smarter or better informed, I am just pointing out that I have good reasons for MY OPINION that he is clearly biased.

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

Well, if he quotes them directly and then it turns out they said something else, there must be a reason for that. Either his grasp is not that strong after all, maybe he is biased or maybe it is something else. MY OPINION IS it is the bias, based on the reasons I gave above. What is your theory?

↪Tzeentch
You can be sure of whatever you want, still Bennett did not say what Sachs attributed to him. — Jabberwock

And assuming that Bennett's account is reliable: https://theintercept.com/2022/03/23/ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations-israel/ (BTW one key issue in the negotiation was REGIME CHANGE IN KYIV)

The US provocation of this war is clear to anyone willing to look at the record, particularly 2008. Their military support is good for the powerful arms industry, and there’s apparently little willingness to engage in serious peace negotiations.

None of this should be controversial— except that it gets heard as “Putin is blameless.”

there’s apparently little willingness to engage in serious peace negotiations. — Mikie

Is Russia willing? What kinds of concessions/demands do they have?

, lately, no negotiations, just the Kremlin stating demands, refusal.
Incidentally perhaps, now the same for the grain thing.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainians have grown increasingly distrustful, hateful. (PTSD?)

Depends on who you ask. According to the US, Russia shows no interest in negotiating, despite what Putin has publicly stated. Others say the US hasn’t seriously engaged in negotiations.

My own opinion leans towards the US not being very serious. They have too strong an interest in continuing this war.

Of course, Trump recently mentioned that he could solve this issue in “one day” by threatening to give Ukraine “a lot” and by telling Zelensky to “stop it.” So I guess there’s hope.

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.

What will happen to food prices? How many people will starve because of Putin's invasion?

My own opinion leans towards the US not being very serious. They have too strong an interest in continuing this war. — Mikie

Yeah, the U.S. definitely wants to bleed Russia dry, however, China could step into the void and be a peace-maker. I suspect both sides are too far apart for negotiation to work right now, sunken cost fallacy and all that.

I think you’re right. Incidentally, the oft-referenced dissenter John Mearsheimer is equally pessimistic:

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.

Why would Ukraine give away land at this point for a peace treaty? After the attempted coup in Russia, they smell blood. If they can attrit Russia some more, maybe the whole war will end.

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.

They need James Bond to snorkel over there and blow that shit up. — frank

Or get to Berdiansk.

:up:

My own opinion leans towards the US not being very serious. They have too strong an interest in continuing this war. — Mikie

Weighing blame...?

Their military support is good for the powerful arms industry, and there’s apparently little willingness to engage in serious peace negotiations. — Mikie

More than one topic I guess. The military-industrial complex (not just US, by the way), politics (like democracy versus authoritarianism), all that.

What will happen to food prices? [...] — RogueAI

Don't know exactly. Some estimates have been reported, didn't look good. Maybe other transport routes can be devised. (Or maybe the freighters can be protected by the Chinese navy. :wink:)

Weighing blame...? — jorndoe

Yes. I tend to weigh the contributions of the country I live in more heavily— as is should be for anyone of rational age.

More than one topic I guess. — jorndoe

:up:

Ahhh!!! The deep insightful wisdom of Jeffrey Sachs, Mearsheimer & co.

We are not worthy! — ssu

Have you been to Ukraine? No
Have you spoken to the negotiators? No
Have you seen the documents involved? No
Were you there at the time of any of the relevant events? No

So give up this stupid pretence that you're not relying on sources too. This is all about trust in sources for us. None of us are dealing with first hand information. None of us are even dealing with second hand analysis of raw materials. We're all of us dealing with third hand filtered, selected and interpreted analysis of data, and all annalists have agendas.

Being flippant about acknowledging sources doesn't help you sound more sensible.

Again and again several people have given sensible and well thought refutations on just why they disagree with your opinion and have showed the bias of people like mr Sachs. Some have put questions to you that you have not answered.

For others there’s a multitude of various people to quote or refer to, but for a few here there’s Sachs & Mearsheimer, perhaps Scott Ritter etc and not much else.

So perhaps we are not worthy.

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

And maintaining a strong 'sphere of influence' is a perfectly rational response to having that sphere threatened. If someone threatens to steal my car, I'm going to chain up my bike too in case I need it. I'm not here even promoting this a s a reason. I'm showing how you can't use the consistency of someone's theory to indicate bias. Just because Sach's theory makes sense in one particular frame, it doesn't indicate bias.

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

Again, he doesn't ignore it, he just doesn't share your view of the significance of such absences. He is of the view that uncertainties in agreements are not going to be poked at until and unless they become a risk. Putin had no particular reason to keep banging on about NATO expansion until it reached the tipping point with the risk of Ukraine. Once more. Your opinion about what is relevant is not an indicator of bias, it's just the means by which parties disagree. Relevance is not a 'fact' like gravity, or historical events, it's an opinion.

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

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".

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

Sach's point is not about the other factors. He's not an historian, he's not writing a textbook account. He's criticising the US, so what matters is what shouldn't have happened, particularly from the point of view of Russia. It's not relevant if the protests were 99% instigated by popular feeling because Russia would have no complaint against a major foreign power in that case. What matters to Sach's argument is the 1% (or whatever) that is down to a foreign power interfering. Focus is not bias, it's how arguments are presented. If I say "It's raining so I'm going to take my umbrella" you don't accuse me of bias because I haven't mentioned that I have hands, and that's one on the most important aspects of carrying an umbrella. It's just not relevant to my argument.

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

No. again Sach's point isn't how hard it was for Ukraine trapped between a rock and a hard place, In a different article for a different purpose, maybe he could have waxed lyrical about what a difficult choice they faced. His point in using that quote was that people were aware joining NATO would lead to war. The fact that not doing so might lead to something else undesirable is irrelevant, Sach's isn't criticising the decision, he's criticising the lie that no-one thought NATO involvement would aggravate Russia.

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

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'.

just pointing out that I have good reasons for MY OPINION that he is clearly biased. — Jabberwock

You don't. You have good reasons to disagree with him (including about which facts are most relevant). That's not the same thing. Not everyone you disagree with is biased.

And maintaining a strong 'sphere of influence' is a perfectly rational response to having that sphere threatened. — Isaac

You miss the point. Sachs' thesis is that if not for 'agressive NATO push by the US', everything would be peaceful. That is simply ahistorical - Russia agressively sought to maintain its sphere of influence whether NATO was involved or not. That is, most attempts of the former republics to leave that sphere were met with agression. Surely you can see the difference between 'Russia uses force to keep the former republics in its sphere' and 'US did it'.

Again, he doesn't ignore it, he just doesn't share your view of the significance of such absences. — Isaac

But that is exactly what bias is - accepting only those facts that support your thesis and rejecting all other facts as irrelevant.

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

Yes, and he reneged on that promise AGAINST the public opinion, not in line with it, contrary to what Sachs says.

Sach's point is not about the other factors. He's not an historian, he's not writing a textbook account. — Isaac

Your example makes no sense, as the rain is the major factor in having the umbrella, not the 1% factor. If I take my umbrella and the reasons are 99% because it is raining and 1% because I think I look good with it, writing 'he took the umbrella because he looks good with it' is not 'focus', it is bias, if not to say dishonesty. Presenting ONLY those facts that support your thesis and ignoring the outweighing facts that significantly question it is not 'focus'. Neither is presenting a small contributing factor as a cause for some events. A reader not familiar with the events would have a very distorted view of them if he read Sachs' article.

No. again Sach's point isn't how hard it was for Ukraine trapped between a rock and a hard place — Isaac

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.

The fact that not doing so might lead to something else undesirable is irrelevant — Isaac

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'? Do you realize how absurd you sound now? It is not 'focus', it is knowing omission of the facts that directly negate his thesis.

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

But the very issue is that Sachs does not 'disagree' with the facts, he just ignores them or knowingly omits them. He does not say 'Arestovich believes that the war would still occur, but I disagree with him for such and such reasons'. He pretends he never said that.

If a drunk driver drastically exceeded a speed limit in a pouring rain and hit a pedestrian, and the local newspaper run an article 'An accident caused by rain', you would not say that the reporting was 'focused' on some facts or that the 'relevance of facts is just an opinion'. You would call it out.

Sachs' thesis is that if not for 'agressive NATO push by the US', everything would be peaceful. — 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?

that is exactly what bias is - accepting only those facts that support your thesis and rejecting all other facts as irrelevant. — Jabberwock

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?

he reneged on that promise AGAINST the public opinion, not in line with it, contrary to what Sachs says. — Jabberwock

Sachs does not make the argument that reneging on the promise of neutrality was inline with public opinion.

Presenting ONLY those facts that support your thesis and ignoring the outweighing facts that significantly question it is not 'focus'. — Jabberwock

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.

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

No, he doesn't. He describes Russian takeover. In the context of pro-Russian policies that does not necessarily mean war. Notwithstanding that interpretation, nothing in that makes it untrue that the US's actions provoked this war, which is Sachs's argument.

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'.

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

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.

And whilst we're on the subject of bias... Where exactly does Arestovych say "war" either way, as you repeatedly misquote him doing?

He pretends he never said that. — Jabberwock

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"?

You and he disagree as to what is relevant. As above, when you disagree about foreign policy with one of the most influential figures in the world on the subject, who is most likely to be right?

---

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.

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

Your arguments from authority have a certain flaw: Sachs is a respected academic, but only a tiny minority of foreign policy experts agree with him on this issue. Curiously, he happens to be in very small minorities on a host of issues, including some of his theories in economics.

There is a open letter directed to Sachs, signed by three hundred academics (some of them, I assume, smart and informed; possibly, some of them smarter and better informed than Sachs?). They do not seem to have a problem with his 'interpretations', or 'focus', but point out what seem to be the factual inacuraccies in his theories - some of them are related to the points I have raised, some are not.

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

If the 99% of cause of the overthrow is the popular rising and 1% is US scheming, then considering the 99% is irrelevant is not just a matter of opinion.

Sachs does not make the argument that reneging on the promise of neutrality was inline with public opinion. — Isaac

That is why it is intellectually dishonest.
'He was living peacefully for forty years, but then the police shot him'.
'But you forgot to mention that after those forty years he began to attack his neighbors with an axe'.
'I was choosing facts that I considered relevant'.

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

It cannot be known if Russia reacted to foreign interference, if there were also local protests predating that interference and having much more causal weight than that interference. So yes, it definitely has bearing on that argument, as Russia could have reacted to local protests, not to interference. That is why presenting a minor factor and describing it as a cause while omitting a major factor which might also be a cause is biased.

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

That is an excellent example! Sachs' argument looks exactly like that: 'He murdered him! He gave him a poisonous injection!' But when it is pointed out that, in fact, the person was terminally ill, in great pain, agreed to it and it was perfectly legally conducted euthanasia, the objection is: 'These facts are not relevant! We focus only on the murder!' Yes, that was perfect, thank you.

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

Oh, so the authority is suddenly not as important as bias, is it? Because you have to admit that Arestovych is much better informed in the matters than Sachs, the economist, right? And sure, Sachs can disagree with him. However, providing a quote that completely changes the meaning of what he said is something different.

And what else do you imagine the 'takeover' to be, as Ukrainians seemingly decided they will no longer be partitioned by Russia piece by piece? After all, the war never ceased, as Sachs claims.

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

The fact that he provided the link does not change the fact that he selected a part of a quote so that it distorts its meaning to support his view which would not be supported by the whole quote. There is a Wiki on such behavior.

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

No, I am not confident of that, on the contrary. I would believe that a completely unbiased source is rather hard to find. That is why I try to get information from various, possibly opposing sources, which are likely to present different facts. For example, the letter of three hundred given above gives some facts. Does it give all the facts? No. Is it biased? Of course it is. Does it give, together with Sachs' article, a better view of the issues discussed? Yes. Are the two sources sufficient to get the whole picture? Unlikely, but still those two are better than just one of them.

:fire:

Why no popcorn emoji?

Beware the jabberwock my son...

You could say the US is at fault because they talked the Ukrainians into giving up their nuclear weapons after the Cold War. If they had nukes, this wouldn't be happening.

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?

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

Which Europeans? Germans, French and Italians - yes, the spell of the inexplicable infatuation with Russia seems to lift. Austrians are hopeless, Brits are unpredictable. The Dutch are obviously vengeful.

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.

Germans, French and Italians - yes, the spell of the inexplicable infatuation with Russia seems to lift. — Jabberwock

Isn't Germany basically the leader? Excuse my ignorance.

The Dutch are obviously vengeful. — Jabberwock

Why are they vengeful?

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

So this is something I don't quite understand. Has Russia always sort of been "hollowed out" as a kleptocracy? Is this the way their culture is normally? Or is this an aberration?