I don't think it's necessarily better or worse than email
It's greatly worse than an email because it (1) primes the candidate with a false set of a (highly positive) expectations, only to simply (2) gouge very significantly into their time (as with any scheduled video call). The fact that these companies have no grasp of what should be obvious to them -- in particular as regards item (2) -- is central to what's so toxic about the current job application process.
That "peace deal" would have required that Ukraine permanently recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea and the Donbas (on top of other concessions).
This is why Russia is called "expansionist". Because it likes to expand its territory.
Before Boris arrived to scupper it.
That's not what happened. I know you read some snippet somewhere that made it sound like that's what happened. But simply put, you're being played. And that's not actually what happened.
Every link of yours is a well-known spin. For example, Bennett has clarified that his words have been taken out of context and misrepresented, and Arahamiya has said that no-one on Ukrainian side belived that Russian peace plan was genuine and not a stalling tactic.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to switch to sites that don't have "conservative" in their URL.
That's the spin of those two observers. But there was a lot to more to the actual chain of events at the time.
And lo and behold, the fact of two guys stating a certain narrative about those events (then embellished up a bit by the publications quoting them) does not make it so. Even the article you're citing about Arahamiya's version of events isn't so clear-cut about the matter (it says Boris's advice was but one factor among many) as you're making it out to be.
2027 is the target that both China and the US have projected for the invasion of Taiwan. Whether it will actually come to pass, who can say, but this is the timeframe that military planners are using to procure equipment today.
> Very unlikely, even if Taiwan collapses quickly.
Indeed, it won't be easy for China to take Taiwan. But modern US power projection is accustomed to using overwhelming force against weak adversaries; the US hasn't had a peer conflict in decades. I give the advantage to China because of geography: it will be easier for China to project power into Taiwan than it will be for the US to project power across the pacific. China knows that carriers and a known number of fixed airfields in allied nations are the weak links. And if China takes Taiwan it will result in the greatest outpouring of Chinese nationalist fervor in our lifetimes, and there's no chance that the newly-triumphant military will want to sit on its laurels when it could be asserting China's new status on the world stage by turning its revanchism towards Russia.
2027 is the target that both China and the US have projected for the invasion of Taiwan
The US has not released a definitive assessment. Jinping apparently did make some announcement that the PLA should be "ready to" invade Taiwan, but that's not the same as "is going to." And may just be propaganda for the PLA's 100th anniversary.
This is a dodge, and you are (rather verbosely) wiggling away from acknowledging a plainly counterfactual statement you just made:
In 2022 Ukraine shut down the pipeline to the EU in 2009 and again in 2014
You can dissect the 2009 and 2014 gas disputes, and speculate about who "provoked" whom all you want -- but as a matter of public record that it was the the Russian operator who cut the flow of gas in each case, not its counterpart.
When did they do that? Provide your sources please.
Note that your link from two posts up states:
> Russia in June halted gas supplies to Ukraine in a price dispute that arose as Moscow sought to ramp up political pressure following the exit of Kremlin ally Viktor Yanukovych in February, amid "Euromaidan" street protests and the occupation of public buildings.
That is, Ukraine was not the first mover even within the confines of the trade dispute (ignoring the fact that Russian troops were literally occupying Ukrainian soil and attacking their cities at the time).
Your argument seems to be that Europe was upset that Ukraine, after having been literally fucking attacked by Russia, might cut off the Russian gas supply (even though they didn't), and so Germany was justified in going around Ukraine for gas and ignoring the whole Russia invading their neighbors thing.
TL;DR from 2014-2022 Germany was happy to leave them out to dry.
This isn't worthy of a flame war, but we'll just note what you're telegraphing to us here: Namely your view that the basic situation with the current blockade of food and humanitarian supplies into Gaza is a matter of people being deprived of "nice things", as you say.
Either that, or that the people concerned about the blockade (and the bombings, and you know, those awful trenches full of bodies and stuff) are just whiny that they can't have "nice things" -- like a world without blatant genocides happening in the open for all to watch, with the support of major Western governments.
Flamewar comments will get you banned here. Please don't post anything more like this. If you can't remain thoughtful and respectful, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are, then please avoid divisive topics.
Flamewar comments will get you banned here. Please don't post anything more like this. If you can't remain thoughtful and respectful, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are, then please avoid divisive topics.
Attitudes towards the Iraq war changed massively during the presidency of George W Bush [1].
Sure it changed once they saw the (wholly predictable) actual reality of the war. But the fact that a solid majority supported the debacle at the outset, despite Bush's lies at the time being roughly on par with Putin's lies about Ukraine today (in terms of being transparently BS) -- does tend to support the point the above commenter is making.
It didn't take years of little progress for the US public to become pessimistic about the Iraq War. The war had less than 50% approval only a year after starting. Also, contrary to what is commonly passed around as fact today, it was not abundantly clear that the Iraqi chemical weapons program no longer existed, as the US was never actually supplied with evidence that the Iraqi Biological Weapons program was done away with after the Gulf War, which is why it wasn't just the possible existence of WMDs that was given as justification, but the non-cooperation with inspectors also. In the early 2000s, soldiers were given multiple rounds of anthrax vaccine shots due to this lack of clarity. This is not to say that this justification a good reason, but it wasn't a clear lie at the time either, despite being repeated commonly as such on the internet these days.
Not at all. A majority of Americans changed their minds in opposition to the sitting president who had started the war. This directly contradicts the point the above commenter was making.
We assigned a task to one guy in Ukraine and two months latter he didn't complete it. One of our colleagues did it in three days.
Given the vast discrepancy in turnaround times -- I would seriously start to wonder about the person on your own team who was responsible for cutting out and assigning work to people outside the company.
Who apparently had not even a ballpark idea of how long the task should take. And who perhaps didn't do such hot job of communicating the requirements, now did they. And on top of that, apparently went to sleep on the task of, you know, tracking the status of the project, checking whether the intermediate deliverables (were there any)? actually worked and where up to team standards in terms of quality, etc. And yet they're still on the job, for some reason.
People love to blame freelancers, and they especially love water-cooler tales about how some project (whether by a person/team inside the company, or outside), and then was done by another person/team in a small fraction of the time. But usually there's more to the story.
It looks a lot like they've set up a puppet government in Ukraine
It "looks like", but only if we glance casually at a couple of articles (or sometimes even just headlines of articles) here and there, without taking the time to, like, actually read them.
Or we pick up random partial factoids (like about the Nuland cable), and we start thinking "Hmm, this would align with [some vastly larger mental model we have the world works]" without stopping to think about what the factoid is actually about, or whether it actually has much of any significance to begin with.
What you have here is article that says "CIA, Ukraine" and you're thinking right way it's about Ukraine being a puppet state. But that's not something the article asserts, or even comes close to talking about as a topic.
A mild annoyance within Ukrainian politics. But in reality, bearing no connection to the problem that Putin makes it out to be. A bogeyman basically.
Per the Wikipedia definition:
The bogeyman (/ˈboʊɡimæn/; also spelled or known as bogyman, bogy, bogey, and, in North American English, also boogeyman)[1] is a mythical creature used by adults to frighten children into good behaviour.
It's greatly worse than an email because it (1) primes the candidate with a false set of a (highly positive) expectations, only to simply (2) gouge very significantly into their time (as with any scheduled video call). The fact that these companies have no grasp of what should be obvious to them -- in particular as regards item (2) -- is central to what's so toxic about the current job application process.