Why does someone as smart as Robert Wright believe anything Putin and his cronies say is anything but a pretext for the world's leading gangster and richest man? Putin started this war to distract the Russian people from the results of his and his cronies stealing - what, 2 trillion dollars or so? - from them. And, yes, Western banke…
Why does someone as smart as Robert Wright believe anything Putin and his cronies say is anything but a pretext for the world's leading gangster and richest man? Putin started this war to distract the Russian people from the results of his and his cronies stealing - what, 2 trillion dollars or so? - from them. And, yes, Western bankers, brokers, real estate moguls, art dealers, yacht makers, etc., took Putin and his cronies money without batting an eye. Robert Wright's incredulous belief that Putin can be taken at his word for starting the war in Ukraine means he is as much part of the "blob" as everyone else.
"Robert Wright's incredulous belief that Putin can be taken at his word"
I think you didn't read the article--if you had, you wouldn't have misrepresented it so severely. The article discusses mainly the cognitive bias (attribution error in this case) of the media (taking a recent NYT piece as an example). Nowhere is there a suggestion that Putin can/should be taken at his word.
Why does someone as smart as Robert Wright believe anything Putin and his cronies say is anything but a pretext for the world's leading gangster and richest man? Putin started this war to distract the Russian people from the results of his and his cronies stealing - what, 2 trillion dollars or so? - from them. And, yes, Western bankers, brokers, real estate moguls, art dealers, yacht makers, etc., took Putin and his cronies money without batting an eye. Robert Wright's incredulous belief that Putin can be taken at his word for starting the war in Ukraine means he is as much part of the "blob" as everyone else.
"Robert Wright's incredulous belief that Putin can be taken at his word"
I think you didn't read the article--if you had, you wouldn't have misrepresented it so severely. The article discusses mainly the cognitive bias (attribution error in this case) of the media (taking a recent NYT piece as an example). Nowhere is there a suggestion that Putin can/should be taken at his word.