<< Were are you from? Former satellite, but does it really matter? Argue your point and it will be judged on its own merits. This is not the place to appeal t

<< Were are you from? Former satellite, but does it really matter? Argue your point and it will be judged on its own merits. This is not the place to appeal to emotion or use talking points ( you can, but you will be called out on it like I am about to do ). << My problem is with this narrative that Putin had his hands tied (by NATO) to invade. I am not going to go after characterizing it as narrative ( in a sense, everything is ), because it can be classified as that. I personally would argue that this is version of risk control. He lost control over Ukraine as aftermath of Orange Revolution and he wants it back. NATO may have not actively participated in said revolution, but you can't honestly tell me western powers had no stake in it ( or no reason to participate in some manner ). << Because it implies that >>what follows is an actual Ukrainian propaganda/talking points<< I don't mind propaganda, but the agency line is a bad line AND a bad argument ( and, as a result, even worse propaganda; propaganda should be effective ). TBH, I am not sure where it originated, but I read it before and I assume it made more sense in original, but lost something in translation. If you read it on your own and adopted it as your own, I would ask you that you explain to me what you think it actually means, because, logically, it does not follow what I wrote at all. If you can do that, we can continue this discussion in good faith. Otherwise, this is my last post in this section. << Allowing the russians to take Crimea in 2014 is what created 2022. I am resisting the urge of connecting some event in a distant past to show how it could be traced to today. As in, you are not completely wrong, but that moment has long passed AND it was just one of the causes ( and you choose to just ignore them ). Shoulda woulda coulda is fun, but unlikely to be productive at this stage ( may make for a good history lesson at some point in the future though ). << The trend I'm seeing is the edgy 14 yo sounding contrarians who think that condemning Russia is too mainstream and boring. I hate to invoke Thiel, but this is one of those few times, where his quote is actually relevant and apt. The most contrarian thing you can do is to think for yourself. It is very true. I have zero problem condemning Russia. Hell, from the beginning I outright stated I want Russians to fail in this campaign. There is a benefit for US ( and frankly EU ) should that come to pass, but repeating talking points is not furthering your cause. Here, it might undermine it. I will take it one step further and offer a piece of advice: know your audience. << It's all part of the regular 'firehose of bullshit' which is a Soviet tactic to influence discourse away from reality. For once, we can agree on something. It is a known tactic and does work surprisingly well and it is the bane of the internet. The good news is that, on the internet these days, shit is everywhere so gold is much, much easier to spot. minor edit: personally, I am an admirer of Ukrainian propaganda. It is usually very competent. The 'no agency' line is just bad though. It is definitely not great for US. It is silly for HN.