[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.