But further analysis and more targeted questioning shows that support for negotiations is largely theoretical. The share of Ukrainians who preferred seeking a compromise to end the war through negotiations fell from 43 percent in the yes or no question to 26 percent when respondents were asked to choose between negotiating with Russia and continuing to fight. Most Ukrainians who expressed openness to negotiate appeared to envision a scenario in which Kyiv was in a favorable enough position to demand the full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory, the prosecution of Russian officials for war crimes, reparations, and other conditions that are nonstarters for the Kremlin.
Interesting how the article seems to completely ignore this.
The entire principle of US journalism is to fill the zone with shit and have everyone sift through the shit to find their own independent nugget of truth.
Intetesting how the article still uses the claim from the source, without commenting at all why this particular figure that supports the narrative is correct, but the other, that does not support it, is incorrect? Why link to a source you know can’t be trusted? Why not simply use a reliable source instead?
The article seems to use https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukraine-public-opinion-russia-war?lang=en as one of the sources suggesting support for negotiations is rising. But it seems to come to a completely different conclusion, e.g.
Interesting how the article seems to completely ignore this.
US journalism is unreliable? Say it isn’t so…
The entire principle of US journalism is to fill the zone with shit and have everyone sift through the shit to find their own independent nugget of truth.
Intetesting how the article still uses the claim from the source, without commenting at all why this particular figure that supports the narrative is correct, but the other, that does not support it, is incorrect? Why link to a source you know can’t be trusted? Why not simply use a reliable source instead?