• hemmes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • 018118055@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      10 months ago

      A link is just pointing at someone else saying it. What makes someone else a better source?

      • XbSuper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Their journalistic integrity. You are no one, therefore your word carries no weight. Link sources, or don’t expect people to believe you.

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • interceder270@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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.

            • Mango@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Naw, I’m more interested in the how.

              When it comes to believing, I don’t believe in it.

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        What makes someone else a better source?

        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.

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.