- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 30,017
I think it's slightly more substantial than "if you don't view it this way, you're wrong". It's a summary of militant reporting and the culture of flippancy promoted by such as demonstrated pretty much everywhere.Well, I read it, and was wondering why. I didn't feel I was seeing anything new, personally. Maybe I missed it - which is why I asked if there's anything in particular you'd highlight.
I also feel the validity of the first half of the text (before the paragraph starting with 'The horrific events...') depends significantly on the validity of the author's apparent argument that 'a neutral Ukraine' should have been the US's goal in peace talks. As has been discussed a lot in this thread, that's really not so clear. And if it isn't, then most of the text in this part of the article isn't nearly as strong as the author thinks - cause it all leads necessarily to his own conclusion. (To put it bluntly: 'people are awful for not seeing it my way, which is the right way'.)
Neutrality is not his argument. That's a citation from another scholar (and only appears once in the entire text).
Yet the US has failed to put a cease-fire and a neutral Ukraine at the forefront of its policy agenda there.
I really don't think the validity of the author's argument rests upon the validity of this argument he cites as secondary source. On the other hand, a neutral Ukraine really should have been the US's goal in peace talks (Minsk).