> “believe us” with no supporting or corroborating evidence
There's reason to be skeptic but it's also extremely naive to think evidence of that nature can just be handed as proofs without blowing multiple sources
"No supporting evidence" oh I'm sure there's plenty of circumstantial evidence (like the satellite photos). Putin knows how to play the game of plausible deniability together with plausible aggressiveness.
"Oh but Iraq", we should definitely remember about it. It doesn't help that Saddam played himself. No kidding, he's like a person acting like he's shoplifting something but in the end isn't. Except you just don't get told off at the store door, you get invaded and overthrown.
There's reason to be skeptic but it's also extremely naive to think evidence of that nature can just be handed as proofs without blowing multiple sources
"No supporting evidence" oh I'm sure there's plenty of circumstantial evidence (like the satellite photos). Putin knows how to play the game of plausible deniability together with plausible aggressiveness.
"Oh but Iraq", we should definitely remember about it. It doesn't help that Saddam played himself. No kidding, he's like a person acting like he's shoplifting something but in the end isn't. Except you just don't get told off at the store door, you get invaded and overthrown.