Comment by didntcheck
7 months ago
I don't see how that follows at all. "War with x" is a factual statement with no implications of moral culpability in either direction
7 months ago
I don't see how that follows at all. "War with x" is a factual statement with no implications of moral culpability in either direction
Yeah, no idea what's going on in this thread. As far as I can tell, this connotation was just invented for the purposes of- well, I shouldn't guess motivations, but I can't think of any good ones.
Here's the BBC using it[1], CNN[2], The AP [3], The Conversation [4]
[1]https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0l0k4389g2o
[2]https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/21/europe/europe-conscription-wa...
[3]https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-star...
[4]https://theconversation.com/why-russias-armed-forces-have-pr...
"It was the war with Russia that drove the fed to raise interest rates in 2022" sounds like the fed or the US was at war with Russia. Your links 1, 3, 4 mention Ukraine in the same sentence as "war with Russia", which makes it clear that the US and the fed are not at war with Russia. Link 2 talks about a threat of war, not an actual war.
GP's complaint is that it implies that someone other than Russia started the war. I don't think mentioning another party who wasn't responsible should change that.
its not factual if war is a verb.
In the upthread usage: “it was the war with Russia”, war is a noun.