Credible sources seemed to hedge their coverage as far as I know. Reuters is my usual source and I legit have no idea how they compare to other sources, I just find their website easy to navigate and like that it doesn’t require subscription money going to shitty fashy opinion writers. I think they hedged their coverage but can’t remember exactly what they said.
It’s more about the Twitter folks who need to drive attention and try to outdo each other for the sake of clicks or engagement. Everyone agrees that’s an issue everywhere else but it seems to be lost as soon as it’s Ukraine-related.
Like this is the kind of stuff that drives the conversation. “Likely signaling and incremental escalation” seems really bad when nuclear war could pop out the other side.
Ignoring you bringing up keed for no reason, what happened here was that at least one poster here shared a non-UA talking point take and there didn’t seem to be any pushback against it.
While personalization and analogizing relations between states to relationships between individual people is always suspect, I do appreciate you went with a drowning person here rather than the typical rape analogy.
Done right, I don’t think of it as hedging, but as thinking about the world in terms of ranges.
The poker analogy is that some people want to put Russia on a specific hand instead of the range of possibilities. Facts constrain the range, eliminating or making less likely certain possibilities. I include a lot of mights and maybes in discussions because I know that I don’t know everything, but I’ve been told that the way I talk is sometimes offputting because I am reluctant to commit 100% to anything that isn’t provable.
I’m confused wouldn’t not wanting Ukraine to join NATO be a subset action of wanting Ukraine to be under Russian control? Definitely doesn’t seem like the opposite at least.
because signal-to-troll ratio matters. are you taking issue with this thread or me not taking keed seriously? or with vindman, who isn’t unbiased, but his job description involved things like escalation ladder analysis, and in this case an unlikely event led him to be wrong?
In the first, he’s saying that joining NATO makes Ukraine harder for Russia to control, in the second, he says it makes it inevitable that Russia will attack.
@anon59375068 if your plan to pwn me was to finally admit all the things you’ve been completely wrong about in this thread by all means give it to me harder.
That’s not contradictory. Joining NATO makes it impossible for Ukraine to be under Russia’s control. Increasingly close Ukrainian relations with the West with ever more Western weapons and training going to Ukraine made the threat of Ukraine being permanently aligned with the West more and more of a threat.
Were you under the impression that I didn’t admit that Russia invaded Ukraine? Did you think that I didn’t realize that Russia withdrew from Kherson after I said I thought they were digging in and reinforcing?
Which is, of course, no threat at all, just the removal of a target for conquest. Either way, if you concede that Russia wanted to at least dominate Ukraine if not conquer some or all of it from the outset, it is absurd to say that the attack is the fault of NATO and not Russia.
