WSJ: Ukraine could be forced to compromise. With support for the war against Russia waning in the U.S., the counteroffensive may define a new border.
archive.ph
putting more words in my mouth, i see.
If you weren't implying that the article isn't representative of the current situation then do elaborate on what your comment actually meant using your own words.
i didn't claim that. i quoted from an independant fact-checking source. take your disagreement to them.
Nothing you quoted from this "independent" source has anything to do with the content of the article. What you engaged in is known as ad hominem fallacy.
if the source is biased, logically, so would be its contents.
but nobody is accusing you of thinking logically.
Every source is inherently biased, there is no such thing as an unbiased source. It's incredible that grown ass adults don't understand this. But nobody is accusing you of thinking logically.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).
Yes, that is a form of a tu quoque fallacy western liberals like to use to shut down criticism of the west and create a double moral standard.
"i know you are but what am i?" is not an effective form of argument.
Yeah, that's not the argument being made, but I guess we've already established that your reading comprehension needs work.
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.