Not all personnel in the Zakarpattia factory were aware of the winter sportswear operation, but those that knew of it were reportedly told to keep it a secret.
Thanks for the links. The Economist is a paywall, but the wiki’s always a good read.
This article from Columbia is a good read as well (and no paywall). It brings up a good point that the volumes are down to “around a third of their pre-war levels.” Which makes more sense than how the OP was presenting things. No way you’ll simply halt that kind of economic relationship so quickly. But they go on to say that transit flows are still very much at risk.
I guess I’m just trying to point out that Ukraine is very much at war, but both belligerents depend on each other economically, which certainly defies expectations, as they say.
Oh boy, calling someone a nobody and whining about integrity in the same breath! Literally everyone is just somebody. Believe them based on evidence rather than your simple minded stylistic impressions. Putting on a lab coat doesn’t add any more credibility than putting on a bath robe.
Snopes got snoped. Snopes is actually terrible. I’m surprised to see their old reputation is still holding out with some people.
Nobody is a good source. Material needs to stand on it’s own. Everyone has a camera, but only well established sources have high quality photo manipulation.
Lies as in deception and not human error? If I’m reading that right, it sounds like there may be some trust issues on your part but I’ll let you elaborate.
Snopes got snoped. Snopes is actually terrible.
Did they? By who? Can you… *ahem*… provide a link? Because that at face value sounds like you’re poisoning the well. You keep casting wide generalizations without backing them up. Sure, I could look it up, but I want your sources specifically for various reasons.
And I’m just gonna say that of course every source has a degree of accuracy to them because the world isn’t black and white, which is the reason why reliability is a spectrum.
Nobody is a good source.
I’m sorry but it’s screaming trust issues again but harder.
Material needs to stand on it’s own.
Can you elaborate? Because I’m also getting weird vibes from this one.
only well established sources have high quality photo manipulation
This is simply not true, not in the world of AI and not in the world of Photoshop. If you can’t convincingly manipulate a photo using free tools and/or pirated software, then it’s a skill issue. See here for more details.
I see a lot of text but no links
https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/03/30/why-russian-oil-and-gas-is-still-flowing-through-ukraine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine
It took me less than a minute. I don’t know about Ukraine’s happiness, I suppose someone else could look that up.
Thanks for the links. The Economist is a paywall, but the wiki’s always a good read.
This article from Columbia is a good read as well (and no paywall). It brings up a good point that the volumes are down to “around a third of their pre-war levels.” Which makes more sense than how the OP was presenting things. No way you’ll simply halt that kind of economic relationship so quickly. But they go on to say that transit flows are still very much at risk.
I guess I’m just trying to point out that Ukraine is very much at war, but both belligerents depend on each other economically, which certainly defies expectations, as they say.
Thanks. Sorry for paywall, the article was readable linked from a search as is often the way. Archive.today will open it.
The economic codependency is surprising to some but logical I suppose.
A link is just pointing at someone else saying it. What makes someone else a better source?
Their journalistic integrity. You are no one, therefore your word carries no weight. Link sources, or don’t expect people to believe you.
Oh boy, calling someone a nobody and whining about integrity in the same breath! Literally everyone is just somebody. Believe them based on evidence rather than your simple minded stylistic impressions. Putting on a lab coat doesn’t add any more credibility than putting on a bath robe.
I’m not going to say you’re wrong.
But believing something is true just because you read it from some random commenter on the internet isn’t really smart.
It’s smart to ask them where they’re getting their information.
Naw, I’m more interested in the how.
When it comes to believing, I don’t believe in it.
Removed by mod
They have a history of adhering to facts, so they’ve built up a good reputation.
You can look them up on mediabiasfactcheck.com and other independent fact checkers like Snopes to see how much of a reliable source they are.
Oh boy here we go.
The best lies have truths sprinkled around them.
Snopes got snoped. Snopes is actually terrible. I’m surprised to see their old reputation is still holding out with some people.
Nobody is a good source. Material needs to stand on it’s own. Everyone has a camera, but only well established sources have high quality photo manipulation.
Lies as in deception and not human error? If I’m reading that right, it sounds like there may be some trust issues on your part but I’ll let you elaborate.
Did they? By who? Can you… *ahem*… provide a link? Because that at face value sounds like you’re poisoning the well. You keep casting wide generalizations without backing them up. Sure, I could look it up, but I want your sources specifically for various reasons.
And I’m just gonna say that of course every source has a degree of accuracy to them because the world isn’t black and white, which is the reason why reliability is a spectrum.
I’m sorry but it’s screaming trust issues again but harder.
Can you elaborate? Because I’m also getting weird vibes from this one.
This is simply not true, not in the world of AI and not in the world of Photoshop. If you can’t convincingly manipulate a photo using free tools and/or pirated software, then it’s a skill issue. See here for more details.