skepller@lemmy.world to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 2 months agoChina Is Joining Russia’s Shadow War on Europewww.bloomberg.comexternal-linkmessage-square63fedilinkarrow-up177arrow-down14file-text
arrow-up173arrow-down1external-linkChina Is Joining Russia’s Shadow War on Europewww.bloomberg.comskepller@lemmy.world to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square63fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarerandomname@scribe.disroot.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·edit-22 months ago@plyth@feddit.org That is a good attitude. I obviously don’t see the need in this case. It’s not prose but facts. They can’t be significantly altered in the summary. Ah, now it’s clearer how your comments come about. Very illuminating. Don’t read. Just the summary and Wikipedia.
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·2 months agoDo you think my comments are wrong because I haven’t read the book?
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 months agoYou want to judge something you don’t know. That’s never a good idea.
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 months agoI don’t judge the book. I judge the situation of a war by a summary of an analysis of the geostrategic relevance of the area.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 months agoWhy are you regularly referring to this precise book?
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 months agoSo that others can see how the experts analyse the situation.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 months agoDo you agree with the book?
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 months agoIn which way? The original book or the adjusted part of the reprint? With the given assumptions I think the book does a reasonable analysis.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 months agoHow would you know if you haven’t read it?
@plyth@feddit.org
Ah, now it’s clearer how your comments come about. Very illuminating. Don’t read. Just the summary and Wikipedia.
Do you think my comments are wrong because I haven’t read the book?
You want to judge something you don’t know. That’s never a good idea.
I don’t judge the book. I judge the situation of a war by a summary of an analysis of the geostrategic relevance of the area.
Why are you regularly referring to this precise book?
So that others can see how the experts analyse the situation.
Do you agree with the book?
In which way? The original book or the adjusted part of the reprint?
With the given assumptions I think the book does a reasonable analysis.
How would you know if you haven’t read it?