nekandroUkraine to Protect Its F-16 Fighter Fleet by Basing Planes ‘in Other Countries’
While I think that’s dope it does feel like it gives Russia valid cause to strike them in host countries and kind of feels like a deliberate provocation to do so?
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Russia already stated that they will do precisely that, so this moves us one step closer to a nuclear holocaust. Hope it was worth it.
Russia has stated many things they will do, but haven’t then actually done. Why would this time be different? …wikipedia.org/…/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian…
Pretty much none of those were actually stated by Russia. The trend has been that it’s the west that make up these red lines, then crosses them and says, see nothing happened. Last I checked, the actual red line Russia set out was Ukraine joining NATO, and when that red line was ignored the war started. This notion that you can just keep pushing a nuclear superpower and nothing bad will happen is imbecilic beyond belief.
There are sources given for the claims. If they are inaccurate you should remove the sources, and the claim itself if there are no good sources supporting it anymore.
If you bother reading the sources, then you’ll see that these aren’t primary sources of anything the Russian government said. These are articles and interpretations by western analysts and think tanks. Feel free to link statements from the Russian government though.
Again, if a source is incorrect, feel free to remove it.
Again, provide primary sources for your claims.
I already have sources. If you don’t believe them, it’s up to you to show that, not me to provode you with endless sources that you anyway will reject for some reason.
Do you understand the concept of a primary source?
then feel free to provide some
I’m happy with the current ones, thanks.
You did not provide any primary sources, so evidently you don’t understand what a primary source is. Good chat.
M0oP0oWhere are your primary sources?
Does that also mean you don’t understand what they are?
See this does not work the way you think it does.
I’m not the one making the claim. I’m saying that I have not seen any official Russian statement to this effect. However, if you have a source for one then please show it.
See this does not work the way you think it does.
You are the one claiming the given sources are incorrect. You are the one making a claim, and you are the one the burden of proof falls on.
You are really hurting the Russian case here. They do their best to act all tough and intimidating, and here all you come with is crying about not liking the provided sources. You’re making them look even worse then they already do.
I said that you failed to provide primary sources to support your claims.
Yes, and then what? Are you somehow suggesting that only primary sources can be used as sources? I’ve never heard anyine take that position before.
Of course, one can challenge sources (of any type) but that does usully require some type of argument for why the source is incorrect, and not just because you don’t like it.
I’m suggesting that when you say Russian red lines have been crossed without consequences, you need to provide primary sources from Russia regarding what Russian red lines are. I see this is a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
Of course, one can challenge sources (of any type) but that does usully require some type of argument for why the source is incorrect, and not just because you don’t like it.
The source is incorrect because the red lines claimed in the source haven’t actually been articulated by Russia, and none of the links in your source actually trace back to statements from Russia. So, claiming Russian red lines have been crossed when there is zero actual evidence these were Russian red lines is nonsensical.
you need to provide primary sources from Russia regarding what Russian red lines are.
I actually don’t. I need to provide some source_. If you are unhappy with that source it’s up to you to show that it is a bad source, and why.
I’ve already explained to you why your source is misleading, and that the red lines your sources list trace back to western statements as opposed to Russian ones. It’s not about feels, it’s about you making an objectively false statement.
You literally haven’t explained it. Your argument seems to be that secondary sources are per definition invalid, which you certainly are allowed to feel, but it is a very niche opinion to have.
I literally have repeatedly, the fact that you keep repeating this says all we need to know about your intellectual integrity. Bye.
Yes, you keep repeating how you don’t accept secondary sources. What you don’t repeat (or even mention once) is why you distegard these sources.
Bye.
I did repeatedly and in detail. At least lie about something that’s not literally in the same thread.
Yes, exactly. You repeated that you don’t accept secondary sources. We agree on that. You also keep repeating that you repeated that, which is also true. You are very good at repeating these things. What you still haven’t said even once is your argument for dismissing all these sources.
Feel free to link to a primary source showing your argument, and not just “trust me bro, I said it already”. But also, you already said bye, so I’m not sure why you keep coming back? Is that also something you like repeating?
Oh its so much funnier then that, They then provide non primary sources while demanding everyone else “Proves” them wrong only with primary sources. This is a joke at this point.
The two sources [email protected] provided are nato.int for a NATO statement, a primary source, and the Wikipedia page for burden of proof, a concept that doesn’t have a primary source. In this thread [email protected] has a perfect track record of using 100% (1) primary source, and 0% (0) secondary sources.
They did and some of us watched it live (we are told) on russian state TV in 2022,2023 and just last month. Please provide primary sources that contradict what I witnessed.
still waiting for that official statement bud, should be really easy to find since you obviously wouldn’t make things up
Wrong person, you want @[email protected]
But yes, if you want to have a official statement watch the victory day parade speech putin made.
Again, feel free to link to the part of the parade where Putin says what you two are claiming he said. Should be really easy to do since it’s publicly available.
Should be, go nuts look it up.
I can’t look up what does not exist. There is no such statement, you made it up and now you’re asking me to prove a negative.
politico.eu/…/putin-threaten-arm-west-enemy-with-…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyanPIR-898
aljazeera.com/…/how-real-is-putins-threat-to-nuke…
armscontrol.org/…/putin-calls-reservists-renews-n…
reuters.com/…/putin-warns-west-russia-will-strike…
nypost.com/…/putin-threatens-preemptive-nuclear-s…
cbc.ca/…/putin-ukraine-nato-nuclear-weapons-1.636…
inquirer.com/…/victory-day-putin-zelensky-ukraine…
washingtonpost.com/…/putin-russia-state-union-spe…
Oh yeah, that is how that must work for you every statement you make is true and anyone else needs to provide proof otherwise, and it does not count if you don’t agree.
Thank you for confirming that you are unable to provide a specific quote that substantiates your claims.
aljazeera.com/…/russias-putin-says-arrogant-west-…
"We will not allow anyone to threaten us. Our strategic forces are always in a state of combat readiness.”
I know you will never be satisfied, so I will just keep doing this until you provide proof that russia is stronger now then before Feb 2022.
If you believe that quote constitutes a threat to attack the west, which is what you claimed earlier in this thread, then it’s pretty clear there’s no point continuing the discussion.
No I claimed that putin (russia) has threatened the west with strategic weapons (well implied it anyway, I never made any direct claims). Now you think that somehow multiple nations saying putin has threaten them does not count (for some reason), Putin putting on a big show and dance about strategic weapon drills means nothing, that during many speeches putin eluding to using those weapons means nothing, oh and even after you yourself said “Russia already stated that they will do precisely that, so this moves us one step closer to a nuclear holocaust. Hope it was worth it.” somehow that is not a threat?
Oh there is no point of continuing the discussion but I know you will respond anyway.
Are you taking the piss mate??
The BBC.com is the UK government. They are not the Russian military. I’m confused why you thought they’d be. So no, they are not a primary source.
Politico.eu isn’t the Russian military either. Did you think they were part of the BBC maybe and since BBC is Russia, Politico would be Russia too? Anyway, they’re actually a German private business. They aren’t a primary source either obviously.
ABC News also isn’t the Russian military. Did you really think the Russian military controlled all the major Western news sites??
Aljazeera.com is also not the Russian state. They are the government of Qatar. It’s a completely different country. Not a primary source.
Armscontrol.org is not the Russian government. They’re a lobbying group in the USA. You need to scroll down to see where it says, but it’s on the page you linked, so it’s weird you didn’t notice. As a general tip, Russian government websites are on the .ru top-level-domain.
Reuters.com is the UK government again. They’re still not Russia and still not a primary source. Did you think the UK was part of Russia?
nypost.com isn’t a primary source either. The “ny” is short for “new york” which is a city in the USA. The USA and Russia are different countries.
cbc.ca is a Canadian thing, the .ca means Canada. If you thought Russia owned the UK maybe that’s where you went wrong, since The UK owned Canada at some point in the past, but actually Canada is a sovereign country now. They’re not part of the UK or of Russia.
inquirer.com is the website for the Philadelphia inquirer, it’s the same situation as the nytimes one, where it’s named after a city in the USA, because they are not Russian. The Russian military didn’t name themselves after a city in the USA. It’s really strange you would think they did.
Washington post is named after another city in the USA. “Washington”. Did you really think all of these outlets were the Russian military, or did you perhaps just not know what a primary source is?
Funny you bring up primary sources…
HighalecticalFunny your only response to being destroyed with facts and logic is a pithy one-liner.
Oh? news to me. I was just showing that the world outside russia agrees putin has on a few occasions threatened the use of strategic weapons (because he did).
See the best part of the thing you are replying to is that you can not seem to tell me apart from other people. My “pithy one-liner” was a dig on how another .Ml person just so happens to show up to have the argument as the russian apologist. No where did I claim to provide any primary sources, in fact if you look you can see me making fun of that requirement.
But hey, at least you are a fan of Ben Shapiro. That must be neat.