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?

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?

Yes.

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.

Where 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.

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.