Putin could be open to a pause in fighting amid Russia-Ukraine war: Report
Russian President Vladimir Putin may be open to a cease-fire in his war with Ukraine, so long as the country could still declare victory, a new report by the New York Times found.
Putin, still confident in his forces, said that Russia’s goals have not changed. In his annual year-end press conference last week, Putin warned that there would be no peace solution in Ukraine until Russia achieves its overarching goals, the “denazification” and demilitarization of Ukraine.
Putin’s message might be different now, as he has reportedly signaled he is ready to make a deal. Since September, Putin has signaled that he is open to a pause in fighting along the current lines, which is much shorter than his intention to dominate Ukraine, according to the Times who cited two former senior Russian officials.
According to the United Nations, more than 10,000 civilians have been killed and 18,500 have been injured since the start of the war nearly two years ago.
No. The policies that lead to higher quality of life in Russia would probably not lead to lower quality of life in Ukraine.
In other words we have no reason to believe that aligning with Russia would have resulted in worse outcomes than Ukraine already had. The reason they aligned with the West was primarily to join the EU, which due to corruption and markets they weren't even eligible to join (and still aren't).
This resulted in conflict with Russia and the current circumstances which are far worse than they started with and are essentially irrecoverable at this point (certainly population wise).
In summary it was Ukraine's pursuit of an idealised goal that resulted in negative outcomes. And you are asserting that this is actually a good thing.
Remember when you admitted to me that you were a total moron? Yeah. Your evaluation of every circumstance is super juvenile.
Then I guess it doesn't make you look very good to talk to me. No one's forcing you to waste your time with a moron.
You realise these discussions are public right?
I don't write to address an audience of one, it's to publicly refute vapid nonsense.
In fact I immediately block people who DM because if you don't want a discussion public to convince other people, I'm not going to waste my time convincing a single person.
I see, so you punch down and say rude things to your intellectual inferiors for the benefit of everyone. And what do you think that achieves?
Sir,
I steal this.
Feel free!
Reminds me of my Reddit days, where I used to counter poorly written garbage. Idiots who wrote irrational comments moved on to insults, and so, mods removed all their stupid comments altogether.
I don't think my comments were of the best quality either, but at the end of the day, mods would change the man babies' diaper.
No, I make substantial criticisms and add some insults because I find it funny.
What it achieves is informing people and entertaining me.
I see. And you think people will feel informed by the person who insults mentally handicapped people because he thinks it's funny?
So you are admitting to being mentally handicapped?
Why do you try to drum up your stupidity for sympathy?
You're clearly not mentally handicapped, you're just a lazy mediocre person who sources their opinions from memes.
But next time I run into you you bet I'm going to be asking why a self-aware "mentally handicapped" person, is still repeating tropes that they know are wrong.
You said:
So apparently I am mentally handicapped.
Now please answer my question: Do you think people will feel informed by the person who insults mentally handicapped people because he thinks it’s funny?
I know what game you're trying to play, but you're messing it up and it just looks like your reinforcing your own admissions.
Please answer the question.
You can be mean to mentally handicapped people and still be correct.
Now you're not actually mentally handicapped and it's obvious, you just have moronic opinions and argumentation. So people would not be perceiving someone being mean to a mentally handicapped person.
I thought I was a total moron?
Total morons are mentally handicapped.
So either I'm mentally handicapped or not a total moron.
As for this:
You can also be a racist and be correct. But, ableist or racist, people are less likely to listen to you if you talk about how you mock a minority group for a laugh. I'm sure you realize that, what with being so much smarter than me.
So your argument goes like this
Conclusions
Here's where it fails, and I already warned you about this, calling someone "a total moron" is not a claim of mental handicap and hasn't been for 60+ years it is a long deprecated medical term that is exclusively used as an insult towards the mentally competent.
So premise one is actually false, everyone recognizes that premise 1 is false therefore premise 3 is also false. And neither of the conclusions you are trying to assert are correct.
"with being so much smarter than me"
Clearly.