[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.

[aguaviva]

I hereby take back any and all snark and irrelevant verbiage.

I'll see if I can get back to you at another date. Until then, you may find this article interesting:

https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/44/1/7/12232/How-to-Enla...

You may also want to take a closer look at this guy, on whose program Sachs chose to appear multiple times in 2022 -- noted for among other things calling for Kyiv to be "destroyed", and Kharkiv to be "wiped off the face of the earth":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Solovyov_(TV_presente...

This little snippet will give you a further sense of his vibe:

https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1594915216026112000

And if you like, you can just let that vibe ... sink in for a bit.