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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64397745
https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-threaten-arm-west-enemy-with-long-range-missile/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyanPIR-898
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/1/how-real-is-putins-threat-to-nuke-the-west
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-10/news/putin-calls-reservists-renews-nuclear-threat
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-warns-west-russia-will-strike-harder-if-longer-range-missiles-supplied-2022-06-05/
https://nypost.com/2022/12/10/putin-threatens-preemptive-nuclear-strike-as-war-drags-on/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/putin-ukraine-nato-nuclear-weapons-1.6362890
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/victory-day-putin-zelensky-ukraine-odesa-biden-weapons-systems-20220510.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/29/putin-russia-state-union-speech-military/
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.
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?
Thank you for confirming that you are unable to provide a specific quote that substantiates your claims.