4 ms·

> presenting detailed proof could reveal something about Norway's capabilities which they'd rather keep hidden Then they can also keep this accusation out of t

> presenting detailed proof could reveal something about Norway's capabilities which they'd rather keep hidden Then they can also keep this accusation out of the public eye and deal with this on a diplomatic, which is where these kind of things should be (first) dealt with anyways (as least according to protocol). And this is exactly where so many political accusation lately go off the rails, because although most people are blissfully unaware of it (and hence make them good useful idiots to have the wool pulled over their eyes), these direct political attacks without presented proofs are very much against both the spirit and also the letter of the protocols for such situation. I have to admit that in this particular case I don't know if diplomatic protocols have not been first exhausted before going public like this, but in many other cases that step certainly has been skipped/omitted. Which in themselves were pretty darn shameful violations in their own right. No, some people argue that it is warranted because Russia is doing wrong in the first place, which of course fully hinges on the assumption that the claims are valid in the first place (without any chance to verify this). However, nowhere does it say that such situations should null and void diplomatic protocols, so this line of reasoning is actually politicized hogwash. > no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc Where did you get that? If you know how this "game" actually works, you would know that at some level there will be matching/corroborating information coming from source that are not all controlled by the same interests (or group of interests). I've heard this (false) argument that it all comes don't to trust in whoever provides whatever evidence, but that just isn't true. With enough detailed information (which of course and conveniently is never given; should give rise to enough doubts on its own) it is most certainly possible to give a credibility to such evidence that goes way beyond just the credibility of the source of the damning details itself. I've personally seen cases where this was done, among nations that usually have different or even opposing agendas. But when it comes to (most) accusations towards Russia, the most striking part is always the total absence of any evidence at all. Since when have we become all this gullible, that we just believe organization who themselves have questionable track records on their good word and reputation? Nah, that just doesn't cut it for me. For for anyone to whom it does, good luck with that unwavering faith (which in my opinion goes straight against logic).

jnurmine 6y ago
>> no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc >Where did you get that? Well, from the fact that there usually is evidence provided, and such evidence usually gets denied by either the high-ranking state officials, and/or state-controlled media and/or state-controlled social media accounts and/or similar channels. In any case the real evidence is seldom presented at all, let alone neutrally, on the state-controlled channels. Just look at the cases I listed. There is no doubt of deep involvement. Yet in all cases the provided evidence is "fantasy" or "fabrications" or ultimately a "NATO plot" or even waved off as some form of totally illogical hatred of the Russian people (!). Then there's also the counter-evidences, which are often clumsy attempts to add confusion to the real evidences and to delegitimize the original claims of guilt. For example, in the MH17 case, there was satellite imagery of a fighter jet firing missiles and so on. In the Navalny nerve agent poisoning case there was a "phone call between Warsaw and Berlin". Sadly, and predictably, denial of presented evidence is the usual reaction and a deliberate part of the communication strategy employed. On one hand, it is completely logical, because accepting the evidence would be an admission of guilt and such a thing never seems to be done. On the other hand, given their ongoing track record of aggressive and rather expansionist rhetoric, bullying their neighbouring countries and the tendency of always denying evidence, even for things which are clearly their doings, why should any nation think Russia is innocent if something points to Russia? > the most striking part is always the total absence of any evidence at all No, there is no "total absence of evidence". There is usually plenty of evidence. And from this we go back to the deliberate strategy of rejecting evidence; the evidence is always somehow lacking, incomplete, inaccurate, etc. or that there is no evidence at all. The bottom line is that unfortunately Russia is perceived to be like a bully against its neighbouring countries in its West and North-West because of its words and actions. If it stopped doing the needless bullying, maybe those neighbouring countries wouldn't be so fast to point the finger at Russia.
- cnst 6y ago
  It's so funny how you're very quick to point out that the evidence would be denied, at the same time, we're still not even provided any evidence at all. The link is literally empty; there's nothing more at the link than the custom title we see here. So, basically, if it comes down to Russia being the defendant, the mere accusation alone should already be sufficient, because Russia always denies the validity of evidence, so, hence there's no need to provide any, because it'll only make it easier for the defendant to defend themselves, when all the evidence is on public display?! And this happens every single time? If Russia is the defendant, then they're surely guilty? So, we shouldn't even go into the trouble of bothering to collect or examine the evidence? I mean, can you even remember any time, any one single time, when Russia was accused merely for political gain, and we should have been smarter than taking the bait?

jnurmine 6y ago

>> no amount of evidence would be enough or credible enough or good enough or acceptable enough etc >Where did you get that? Well, from the fact that there usually is evidence provided, and such evidence usually gets denied by either the high-ranking state officials, and/or state-controlled media and/or state-controlled social media accounts and/or similar channels. In any case the real evidence is seldom presented at all, let alone neutrally, on the state-controlled channels. Just look at the cases I listed. There is no doubt of deep involvement. Yet in all cases the provided evidence is "fantasy" or "fabrications" or ultimately a "NATO plot" or even waved off as some form of totally illogical hatred of the Russian people (!). Then there's also the counter-evidences, which are often clumsy attempts to add confusion to the real evidences and to delegitimize the original claims of guilt. For example, in the MH17 case, there was satellite imagery of a fighter jet firing missiles and so on. In the Navalny nerve agent poisoning case there was a "phone call between Warsaw and Berlin". Sadly, and predictably, denial of presented evidence is the usual reaction and a deliberate part of the communication strategy employed. On one hand, it is completely logical, because accepting the evidence would be an admission of guilt and such a thing never seems to be done. On the other hand, given their ongoing track record of aggressive and rather expansionist rhetoric, bullying their neighbouring countries and the tendency of always denying evidence, even for things which are clearly their doings, why should any nation think Russia is innocent if something points to Russia? > the most striking part is always the total absence of any evidence at all No, there is no "total absence of evidence". There is usually plenty of evidence. And from this we go back to the deliberate strategy of rejecting evidence; the evidence is always somehow lacking, incomplete, inaccurate, etc. or that there is no evidence at all. The bottom line is that unfortunately Russia is perceived to be like a bully against its neighbouring countries in its West and North-West because of its words and actions. If it stopped doing the needless bullying, maybe those neighbouring countries wouldn't be so fast to point the finger at Russia.

cnst 6y ago
It's so funny how you're very quick to point out that the evidence would be denied, at the same time, we're still not even provided any evidence at all. The link is literally empty; there's nothing more at the link than the custom title we see here. So, basically, if it comes down to Russia being the defendant, the mere accusation alone should already be sufficient, because Russia always denies the validity of evidence, so, hence there's no need to provide any, because it'll only make it easier for the defendant to defend themselves, when all the evidence is on public display?! And this happens every single time? If Russia is the defendant, then they're surely guilty? So, we shouldn't even go into the trouble of bothering to collect or examine the evidence? I mean, can you even remember any time, any one single time, when Russia was accused merely for political gain, and we should have been smarter than taking the bait?