No, they just need money and Ukraine is completely fucked economically right now. Also Ukrainian government is still cooperating with Russia in many ways. For example, Russian gas still flows through pipes in Ukraine, Russia still pays money for transit and Ukraine is happy about it.
It took me less than a minute. I don't know about Ukraine's happiness, I suppose someone else could look that up.
Thanks for the links. The Economist is a paywall, but the wiki's always a good read.
This article from Columbia is a good read as well (and no paywall). It brings up a good point that the volumes are down to "around a third of their pre-war levels." Which makes more sense than how the OP was presenting things. No way you'll simply halt that kind of economic relationship so quickly. But they go on to say that transit flows are still very much at risk.
I guess I'm just trying to point out that Ukraine is very much at war, but both belligerents depend on each other economically, which certainly defies expectations, as they say.
Thanks. Sorry for paywall, the article was readable linked from a search as is often the way. Archive.today will open it.
The economic codependency is surprising to some but logical I suppose.
A link is just pointing at someone else saying it. What makes someone else a better source?
Their journalistic integrity. You are no one, therefore your word carries no weight. Link sources, or don't expect people to believe you.
Oh boy, calling someone a nobody and whining about integrity in the same breath! Literally everyone is just somebody. Believe them based on evidence rather than your simple minded stylistic impressions. Putting on a lab coat doesn't add any more credibility than putting on a bath robe.
I'm not going to say you're wrong.
But believing something is true just because you read it from some random commenter on the internet isn't really smart.
It's smart to ask them where they're getting their information.
Naw, I'm more interested in the how.
When it comes to believing, I don't believe in it.
They have a history of adhering to facts, so they've built up a good reputation.
You can look them up on mediabiasfactcheck.com and other independent fact checkers like Snopes to see how much of a reliable source they are.
Oh boy here we go.
The best lies have truths sprinkled around them.
Snopes got snoped. Snopes is actually terrible. I'm surprised to see their old reputation is still holding out with some people.
Nobody is a good source. Material needs to stand on it's own. Everyone has a camera, but only well established sources have high quality photo manipulation.
The best lies have truths sprinkled around them.
Lies as in deception and not human error? If I'm reading that right, it sounds like there may be some trust issues on your part but I'll let you elaborate.
Snopes got snoped. Snopes is actually terrible.
Did they? By who? Can you... *ahem*... provide a link? Because that at face value sounds like you're poisoning the well. You keep casting wide generalizations without backing them up. Sure, I could look it up, but I want your sources specifically for various reasons.
And I'm just gonna say that of course every source has a degree of accuracy to them because the world isn't black and white, which is the reason why reliability is a spectrum.
Nobody is a good source.
I'm sorry but it's screaming trust issues again but harder.
Material needs to stand on it’s own.
Can you elaborate? Because I'm also getting weird vibes from this one.
only well established sources have high quality photo manipulation
This is simply not true, not in the world of AI and not in the world of Photoshop. If you can't convincingly manipulate a photo using free tools and/or pirated software, then it's a skill issue. See here for more details.
Why do you think I should just trust? I can't go more than a few seconds in a day without someone trying to sell me some bullshit. I don't have a trust issue. I have a distrust feature.
You want me to give you my exact source where I learned this information years ago? Why would I bother cataloging that shit? I can't even keep the world from stealing everything I've ever worked for. Do you think I'm just gonna look it up on the spot to appease your little act when my whole point is to figure shit out myself?
Well established sources can hire skill with all their money they make with sensationalized nonsense. I can't just pick that shit up. I gotta spend 8 hours a day making the land owners some money and after that I'm fond of enjoying myself.
I'm not saying you should "just trust" but that you have an issue with trust that's getting in the way of a healthy skepticism and exercising critical thinking. I'm all for distrusting the internet but you can't just raze it all and call everything lies. Especially when you then turn around and spread hearsay.
You want me to give you my exact source where I learned this information years ago?
No, I want you to look it up in less than a minute. That's less than half the time it took you to write your comment. It serves many purposes like:
Proving it to yourself as much as proving it to me
See how skeptic or gullible you may be by the type of source you do trust
Make sure we're on the same page
Sticking to facts instead of relying on memories
You're saying you don't want to participate, so why should I trust you at all? Because In less than 30 seconds I found this:
We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to an investigation that indicates a co-founding editor engaged in plagiarism. The plagiarism was not related to Fact-Checks and they remain credible for fact-checking.
Two highly reliable sources mean they're reasonably trustworthy, and way more trustworthy than you are, random chatter. And it turns out that what you remember from many years ago is quite different from reality.
So if you don't want to participate in "a little act" that's fine, but at least don't spread false claims. After all, we do live in a society.
The only issue you have with my trust is that I do not trust you and what you think are the cheat codes for belief.
Two highly reliable sources mean they probably have aligned goals.
I'm not spreading claims. I'm showing people how they don't have to believe under pressure.
These aren't cheatcodes. Maybe they're shortcuts for like degrees of certainty with low margins of error, sure. But do you think I suspend my own critical thinking immediately when I read them? I'm aware that that specific piece of info could be faulty. Do you really think people are this naive? lol
Two reliable sources that coincide with the source means they're being truthful. It's weird that you dismiss them without good reason at all.
See how your own distrust colors your perception here? Could there be collusion? Sure, but it's highly unlikely but you're almost certain. Why? And besides, you're foregoing so much more, ironically risking the spread of even more misinformation on the internet that you already distrust for the sake of an ideal. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. lol
Like I said, I'm not denying that there could be collusion--and even drifting ideals or whatever--but I'd be more concerned about whatever you have going on if I were you. There is such a thing as objective reality, after all.
I’m not spreading claims
You literally just spread misinformation based on your own faulty memory and I caught you red-handed. How can you even deny this. I won't convince you that what you're doing is questionable or that your reasoning is faulty, but at least stop doing the very thing you're complaining about.
It’s all a really weird theatre isn’t it? This geopolitical stuff.
Perhaps Ukraine should advance alongside the pipeline, which Russian troops dare not shell.
It may surprise you but inter nation deals during war are not at all uncommon. While we were bombing Berlin we were also selling them shit they needed and couldn't get without us in exchange for shit we needed and couldn't get without them.
Capitalism gunna capitalize.
Why would that surprise him? He literally explained that's what's happening.
You as in the reader not you as in the commentor who I think understood the meaning hence the lack of response.
Maybe they had poisoned inseams?
No, they just need money and Ukraine is completely fucked economically right now. Also Ukrainian government is still cooperating with Russia in many ways. For example, Russian gas still flows through pipes in Ukraine, Russia still pays money for transit and Ukraine is happy about it.
I see a lot of text but no links
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/03/30/why-russian-oil-and-gas-is-still-flowing-through-ukraine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine
It took me less than a minute. I don't know about Ukraine's happiness, I suppose someone else could look that up.
Thanks for the links. The Economist is a paywall, but the wiki's always a good read.
This article from Columbia is a good read as well (and no paywall). It brings up a good point that the volumes are down to "around a third of their pre-war levels." Which makes more sense than how the OP was presenting things. No way you'll simply halt that kind of economic relationship so quickly. But they go on to say that transit flows are still very much at risk.
I guess I'm just trying to point out that Ukraine is very much at war, but both belligerents depend on each other economically, which certainly defies expectations, as they say.
Thanks. Sorry for paywall, the article was readable linked from a search as is often the way. Archive.today will open it.
The economic codependency is surprising to some but logical I suppose.
A link is just pointing at someone else saying it. What makes someone else a better source?
Their journalistic integrity. You are no one, therefore your word carries no weight. Link sources, or don't expect people to believe you.
Oh boy, calling someone a nobody and whining about integrity in the same breath! Literally everyone is just somebody. Believe them based on evidence rather than your simple minded stylistic impressions. Putting on a lab coat doesn't add any more credibility than putting on a bath robe.
I'm not going to say you're wrong.
But believing something is true just because you read it from some random commenter on the internet isn't really smart.
It's smart to ask them where they're getting their information.
Naw, I'm more interested in the how.
When it comes to believing, I don't believe in it.
They have a history of adhering to facts, so they've built up a good reputation.
You can look them up on mediabiasfactcheck.com and other independent fact checkers like Snopes to see how much of a reliable source they are.
Oh boy here we go.
The best lies have truths sprinkled around them.
Snopes got snoped. Snopes is actually terrible. I'm surprised to see their old reputation is still holding out with some people.
Nobody is a good source. Material needs to stand on it's own. Everyone has a camera, but only well established sources have high quality photo manipulation.
Lies as in deception and not human error? If I'm reading that right, it sounds like there may be some trust issues on your part but I'll let you elaborate.
Did they? By who? Can you... *ahem*... provide a link? Because that at face value sounds like you're poisoning the well. You keep casting wide generalizations without backing them up. Sure, I could look it up, but I want your sources specifically for various reasons.
And I'm just gonna say that of course every source has a degree of accuracy to them because the world isn't black and white, which is the reason why reliability is a spectrum.
I'm sorry but it's screaming trust issues again but harder.
Can you elaborate? Because I'm also getting weird vibes from this one.
This is simply not true, not in the world of AI and not in the world of Photoshop. If you can't convincingly manipulate a photo using free tools and/or pirated software, then it's a skill issue. See here for more details.
Why do you think I should just trust? I can't go more than a few seconds in a day without someone trying to sell me some bullshit. I don't have a trust issue. I have a distrust feature.
You want me to give you my exact source where I learned this information years ago? Why would I bother cataloging that shit? I can't even keep the world from stealing everything I've ever worked for. Do you think I'm just gonna look it up on the spot to appease your little act when my whole point is to figure shit out myself?
Well established sources can hire skill with all their money they make with sensationalized nonsense. I can't just pick that shit up. I gotta spend 8 hours a day making the land owners some money and after that I'm fond of enjoying myself.
I'm not saying you should "just trust" but that you have an issue with trust that's getting in the way of a healthy skepticism and exercising critical thinking. I'm all for distrusting the internet but you can't just raze it all and call everything lies. Especially when you then turn around and spread hearsay.
No, I want you to look it up in less than a minute. That's less than half the time it took you to write your comment. It serves many purposes like:
You're saying you don't want to participate, so why should I trust you at all? Because In less than 30 seconds I found this:
Full story here.
Two highly reliable sources mean they're reasonably trustworthy, and way more trustworthy than you are, random chatter. And it turns out that what you remember from many years ago is quite different from reality.
So if you don't want to participate in "a little act" that's fine, but at least don't spread false claims. After all, we do live in a society.
The only issue you have with my trust is that I do not trust you and what you think are the cheat codes for belief.
Two highly reliable sources mean they probably have aligned goals.
I'm not spreading claims. I'm showing people how they don't have to believe under pressure.
These aren't cheatcodes. Maybe they're shortcuts for like degrees of certainty with low margins of error, sure. But do you think I suspend my own critical thinking immediately when I read them? I'm aware that that specific piece of info could be faulty. Do you really think people are this naive? lol
Two reliable sources that coincide with the source means they're being truthful. It's weird that you dismiss them without good reason at all.
See how your own distrust colors your perception here? Could there be collusion? Sure, but it's highly unlikely but you're almost certain. Why? And besides, you're foregoing so much more, ironically risking the spread of even more misinformation on the internet that you already distrust for the sake of an ideal. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. lol
Like I said, I'm not denying that there could be collusion--and even drifting ideals or whatever--but I'd be more concerned about whatever you have going on if I were you. There is such a thing as objective reality, after all.
You literally just spread misinformation based on your own faulty memory and I caught you red-handed. How can you even deny this. I won't convince you that what you're doing is questionable or that your reasoning is faulty, but at least stop doing the very thing you're complaining about.
It’s all a really weird theatre isn’t it? This geopolitical stuff.
Perhaps Ukraine should advance alongside the pipeline, which Russian troops dare not shell.
It may surprise you but inter nation deals during war are not at all uncommon. While we were bombing Berlin we were also selling them shit they needed and couldn't get without us in exchange for shit we needed and couldn't get without them.
Capitalism gunna capitalize.
Why would that surprise him? He literally explained that's what's happening.
You as in the reader not you as in the commentor who I think understood the meaning hence the lack of response.