[hackinthebochs]

It's weird to see people say stuff like this. Like, are you completely ignorant of the history of US initiated regime change around the world? Do you not find it at all plausible? The US has a very long history of doing this very sort of thing[1]. Do you think the three letter agencies have just been sitting on their hands in recent decades? I just don't get how people can engage in such willful ignorance.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

[kelnos]

I can simultaneously find something plausible and see that there's historical precedent for it, but not accept unsubstantiated fantasy stories made up on the internet.

[aguaviva]

The reasoning you're expressing here is basically: "Heck it's plausible, right? Therefore it might as well have happened. There's no need to actually substantiate that it did. It suffices to just have a gut feeling that it happened."

Nevermind the Jeffrey Sachs interview that no one has time to watch. His take has been debunked elsewhere. What matters here is your own reasoning here, which is incredibly specious. If you can't see the obvious flaw in the argument that you laid down, then I don't know what to tell you.

BTW, here's another helpful suggestion: If you're on your favorite website some day, looking for answers to what's going in the world, and you see the top-posted comment for some article or interview that you thought really rocked is some obviously useless, snarky drivel like the following (taken from the Reddit link you posted):

  Putin just woke up one day, stumbled his toe or something, and decided to invade Ukraine.

Then that should perhaps suggest to you that, far from being your friend, that website, and the articles and videos that get top-posted to it, are probably kinda dodgy. And that maybe you should taking the content you find there with a heaping portion of salt. And that you might want to try fact-checking the content and arguments you find there, instead simply believing it all outright. Or better yet, just stop wasting your time on that website altogether.

Like, are you completely ignorant of the history of US initiated regime change around the world?

I know all about it, and can probably cite dozens of instances off the top of my head. But none of that history translates to evidence that US-initiated regime change actually happened in a given country X, in year Y. It's just innuendo, nothing more.

[hackinthebochs]

That's a lot of words just to say nothing of substance. If you want to make a substantive point--feel free. But I have no interest in engaging with this kind of mindless slop. And regarding the subreddit, if you don't know anything about it, you shouldn't draw any conclusions from the snarky comments you happen to see.

[aguaviva]

It's not just that one comment - it's nearly every comment. The fact that that nearly every thread on that subreddit is basically a giant echo chamber should also be telling you something.

Criticisms of Sachs's take are easy to find, and quite devastating. Whether you care to look into the matter is up to you.

[hackinthebochs]

Yes its an echo chamber, but not by fiat of the mods. It exists as an alternative to the pro-Ukraine echo chamber that is strictly enforced everywhere else on reddit. That the sub ends up skewed pro Russian is just a reflection of it being the only place on reddit where news and takes that aren't 100% Ukraine cheerleading are allowed to be posted.

>Criticisms of Sachs's take are easy to find, and quite devastating. Whether you care to look into the matter is up to you.

If you didn't want a substantive engagement on these points, why did you bother to reply? Just to promote the sanctioned opinion on Ukraine? Don't you think there's enough of that on social media?

[aguaviva]

Just to promote the sanctioned opinion on Ukraine?

My own strategy is to completely ignore what the "sanctioned opinion" (whatever that means) on a given topic is, and to work the factual chronology and reasonably verifiable reporting or statements best as I can. That, and whenever possible, to talk with people who were on the ground or reasonably close to it at the time. Or who are at least from the region, seem knowledgeable, and definitely are not assholes or otherwise have some major axe to grind.

I also try to ignore nearly all social media, to whatever extent possible.

But hey, that's just me. You do you. I wouldn't say I didn't want a substantive engagement, but it's getting late, and I think we've both said enough. We just disagree. We didn't start this war, and in the broader picture, I suspect we're probably more or less on the same basic side of the basic moral issues.

So if you like we can leave it that.

[hackinthebochs]

>My own strategy is to completely ignore what the "sanctioned opinion" (whatever that means) on a given topic is, and to work the factual chronology and reasonably verifiable reporting or statements best as I can. That, and whenever possible, to talk with people who were on the ground or reasonably close to it at the time.

Great. I take a similar approach.

It's unfortunate you felt the need to begin the conversation with snark and irrelevant verbiage. But I can understand being jaded from wasting time engaging with people who aren't interested in substantively examining an issue.

Despite the missed opportunity, I am interested in engaging with what you consider a solid rebuttal to Sachs' points mentioned in the linked video. Feel free to offer a resource if you have one handy. I won't respond to it with a rebuttal or anything along those lines. It's purely for my own edification.