Silly Rabbit! That would obviously depend upon whether the article then went on to actually furnish such supporting information!
The article, as it stands, does not analyze the current military situation on the ground, but instead indulges in wanton speculation about possible future developments (or simply takes certain developments for granted, to then pile further unsupported claims on top of them).
The article does not attempt to compare the relative military and economic strengths of the various different parties involved - directly or indirectly - in this conflict.
The article does not attempt to quantify casualties and losses of materiel or analyze the tactical incompetence exhibited by any of the parties.
The article does not attempt to assess the impact of economic sanctions or the relative abilities of the opposing sides to withstand them.
The article is pretty much worthless in almost every regard. Its goal is obviously only to spread worry and propagate defeatism.
Regards,
This would disqualify almost every single Anerican from participating in political and economic discussions, because water cooler conversations (or talks around the dinner table, at the bar, etc) are going to lack the kind of a rigor you're demanding.
The author is offering their opinion on how things are going and what might happen with regards to Russia v. Ukraine. You can take it or leave it. To call it "pathogical", however, is simply knee-jerk derangement.
Its goal is obviously only to spread worry and propagate defeatism.
That depends entirely on who you support (or don't support) in the conflict.
Implies that something like "denazification" even exists - and that Ukraine is in need of it.
Like it or not, that is what was one of the stated goals by Putin. Even if it's hypocritical on his part (given other far-right parties in Russia), the presence of neo-Nazis in various Ukrainian militias is a documented fact. Why would the author pretend it doesn't exist as a goal? (Hint: you can dispute the rationale or motives for why people do things; that doesnt mean they're not happening.)
Characterizes this alleged "denazification" as a "minimal war goal" - which makes it sound prudent and modest.
This is only your subjective characterization. Next.
Refers to "eight years of humiliation and terror in the breakaway regions of Donbass" - implying that Ukraine was not acting entirely within its rights, using appropriate means, to suppress a foreign-backed separatist movement.
Yes, Ukraine did violate ceasefire terms of Minsk I and Minsk II numerous times, what's your point? Neither they nor Russia are sinless with regards to what amounts to yet another messy inter-Slavic ethnic/territorial dispute.
Refers to "Donbass's exuberance" in seizing additional Ukrainian territory, as though the Separatists were merely overzealous schoolboys.
That you think of overzealous schoolboys when you hear the word 'exuberance' is your problem. Once again, this is entirely subjective.
The article is saturated with a pious air of "concern," but is in fact a shameless piece of hackwork in support of the unprovoked Russian invasion and land-grab.
And that's a fair enough opinion to hold.
It doesn't make anyone who happens to think otherwise a "Russian shill", as you claimed earlier.