Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added tothe title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- [email protected] - International and local legal news.
- [email protected] - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- [email protected] - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- [email protected] - News and information about Europe.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
view the rest of the comments
Ukraine wasn’t invited to the decision to fight a proxy war either, or have its government overthrown in the Maidan Coup. And when they attempted peace talks before, their western handlers ordered them to keep fighting.
They're just trying to defend their country.
What's this referring to?
Ahh. The old hasbara strategy of pretending nothing happened before that. Nice.
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
I don't know what that means tbh.
The article and the relevant section from Wikipedia both describe how the talks failed on multiple issues, with one part being the refusal of giving security guarantees.
The idea that a Boris Johnson (of all people) saying "shouldn’t sign anything with them at all – and let’s just fight" was their "Western handlers ordering them to fight" is pretty funny.
So you believe the Ukrainian officials confirming this are lying?
The Wikipedia entries are maintained by western propagandists. I wouldn’t put much faith in the credibility.
I don't know who Ukrainian official you mean, other than that I quoted same person as your article did (Arahamiya/Arakhamia). In those links he isn't confirming your take that "Boris Johnson (of all people) saying “shouldn’t sign anything with them at all – and let’s just fight” was their “Western handlers ordering them to fight”".
The Wikipedia article has links to their sources (news articles) who come back to the same things said in your linked article (from The European Conservative). It's just that the article you linked gives a lot more weight (an outright claim of being forced) to the Boris episode than many other sources or from what I've seen, Arahamiya/Arakhamia (their source) does himself. He doesn't seem to have said what the title of your article (about being forced) claims. Or if he did, they didn't quote that part.
The Wikipedia entry referencing news articles doesn’t mean much if the articles themselves are pushing western propaganda. Especially considering how many news agencies are (or were) on the payroll of USAID, I wouldn’t expect to see them challenge the NATO narrative.
Giving more weight to Wikipedia articles than Ukrainian officials is definitely… an interesting choice.
They're all referencing the same interview and the same quotes from the same person... None of them seems to disagree on what he said as such. He just literally doesn't in any of the quoted parts in any of the articles linked claim or confirm what your news article claimed it confirms, they're just making a claim of their own on the meaning of his words and their own opinion. That's the difference.
Hell, you linked to The European Conservative which is an outright even in the name politically biased news source. But it's the same quotes on all of them, so that part doesn't matter since the actual interview is there.
It's the same exact official that's being quoted in all of the news articles. How are you not getting this... The official being quoted just doesn't say what you claimed he did. You saw Wikipedia and thought that's your way out of your claim but missed the whole thing of it being literally the same person with everyone referencing literally the same interview lol.
You should watch this Jeffrey Sachs interview. He’s also wrote a number of articles delving into the details.
https://youtu.be/23mMpACix_E?si=EIJriHL6UIjznQIb
>Doesn't actually address any of the points mentioned
>Drops in a 26 minute video
>"Just watch this bro"
Fucking bravo.
Bro you just expect me to look at a primary source after I copy and pasted a wikipedia article? how do you think internet arguments work??
You know Wikipedia has their sources in these things [1] and it links to the actual source. Wikipedia in itself isn't the source. And the source for all of them (including the other guy's news article) was the exact same interview.
Definitely not good form to not make any points, but just drop a link to a 26 min video. It's the same as saying source: a whole book. You make the argument and cite the parts you're using for your argument. It's sorta internet arguments 101.
Grow the fuck up and learn how to chew your own food, baby bird.
The other commenter is completely correct here. If you don’t point to the exact material on which you’re basing your argument, you haven’t cited the material.
You wouldn't just say "souce: book" in a thesis or studies, where people are actually reading pages and pages of stuff. You cite the actual part you are referencing. Idk why you'd think it's good form to do that in an online arguments. It just seems like a copout, hoping that the other person doesn't actually check tbh.
No, you're the one coping out by both refusing to engage in good faith AND refusing to do the work of fact checking if you want to be so pedantic and skeptical. You want to have it both ways. And in the end the result is always you ignoring information and arguments you don't like. If you're not invested enough in your objection to skim through 15 minutes of transcript you shouldn't be invested enough to keep flapping your mouth in ignorance of it.
I would've been happy to engage if they stated what point they were trying to make and how and what part of the video they are citing. I'm still happy to do that. If you're expecting others to just figure that out by themselves from a 26 minute video, you are going to have a bad time. If it's not fine on a study or thesis, why would you think it's fine in a fast paced short form internet argument?
When you are making an argument, you are trying to convince the other person. If you don't clearly make your case and rely on them to figure out your argument and what supports it, it's just not going to work well. At that point it feels like the person is trying to convince themselves and not the other person.
I understand you're upset about me not doing the work for them, but there's no need not to be civil about this. This seems to just be a case of us having a very different expectation on what people should do in arguments or how they should argue.
Impossible to take you seriously when you don't have a moment's dissonance saying shit like this. "If it's not correct in context A it shouldn't be correct in context B which is almost exactly opposite to what context A looks like"
You aren't even attempting the mental gymnastics. You're just saying 2+2 = 5 without added effort.
I mean, the point was that if it is not okay to cite just a full book in a context where the communication is a lot slower, text is a lot longer, there's an expectation of reading a lot more and so on, then why would it be okay in an online argument where the communication is a lot quicker, texts a lot shorter and you aren't expected to read at all as much.
To put it in simpler terms: If you shouldn't assume that someone is going to read a whole book for a citation in your thesis, why would you expect that from someone reading a random internet argument? I hope that helps explain it, tell me if I need to clarify further.
You don't need to clarify anything; you're just being wrongheaded. First, just because YOU'RE a freak hitting F5 until your finger breaks doesn't mean asynchronous text is a 'faster' medium. No one's forcing you to talk out of your ass. No one's forcing you to respond as fast as you can. You have permission to stop replying if the person you're arguing with is better read than you and you want to incorporate their knowledge base into your own. And if you don't you're saying that your ignorance is as valuable as their knowledge.
Why would you expect someone to read something just because someone said "I got this information from here"? My child, no one expects you to do that. They expect you to take their word for it. And if you are so hostile as to be motivated to accuse them of lying, you take on the exercise of exposing them.
I'm astounded by how doggedly you're asserting your lazy entitlement.
I'm just telling you how it works generally in an online arguments. You're free to post a whole book or a long video as an argument. It's just that most people aren't going to engage with that and it won't work well to prove an argument to the other people. I'm sorry that it upsets you, it's not my intention.
Oh wow I didn't know I was being visited by his holiness the arbiter of how online arguments should and do work. And by holy decree you've asserted that it works however allows you to be the laziest, most bad faith and anti-intellectual.
I have an idea of how things should work: either engage or don't. You don't have to live like a fucking weasel trying to sidestep arguments with "but you didn't give me a timestamp" and "lol u mad" all the time. You can just shut the fuck up, you know.
Doing these things doesn't make you more right. Just the opposite.
I mean don't take my word for it, see how internet arguments generally work out there in internet. If you come off with a different idea on how they generally work, then it's an agree to disagree situation imo.
No need for these sort of outbursts. Against the rules too...
Delusional. You look. Who out there is using more strict citation rules than academic papers?
I stand by these words and add to them: Fuck you tone policing. Go fuck yourself a second time for the behavior I called out here. Punk ass.
I wasn't asking even for the same rules, just saying that even when there's the expectation that your reader does academic work when reading you don't put in a whole book.
It's the rules. Take it up with mods of this sub and instance.
And my position is that you're a lazy piece of shit crybaby who can't argue in good faith. You can't accept someone saying "I remember reading it in this book" without jumping down their throat and demanding they do work for you for no other purpose than for you to smugly ignore what they say. Fuck you.
You were born stupid and you're going to die stupid.
mfw this thread is still going on
Yes, I understand it’s frustrating when we deviate from the NATO script. Can this bot not digest videos? He’s written a number of articles about it, too. Here’s one:
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/s6ap8hxhp34hg252wtwwwtdw4afw7x?format=amp
Article is better, but even better would be if you quoted a part that's actually relevant to whatever point you're trying to make. And perhaps even stated what point you're trying to make.
If this is still about Ukrainians being "western handlers ordered them to keep fighting", your linked article doesn't give you much help:
So much so for Western handlers ordering them to keep fighting. Wah-wah.
Take your pick. You very broadly denied western involvement, and this delves into the details.
That quote actually makes my point. Not yours.
Do share where I "broadly denied western involvement".
For reference, your point:
It does not at all prove your point. It's just again based on the interview where the person doesn't actually say any of that and he actually said there were many reasons for the talks having failed, namely lacking security guarantees. Wah-wah.
Why are you just throwing links? You should at least make an attempt to quote your sources so you don't leave people here reading erroneous information. @Kusimulkku at least gave you the courtesy of doing that.
If I summarize the info, I’m accused of making it up. If I provide sources, I get complaints about no one wanting to read links.
Bots will move the goalposts no matter what they get.