How is that the implication when there are lots of other explanations, one even given above?

If the target costs more than the missile (including the opportunity cost), and/or the target is a high priority for repairs, it makes sense to target it. It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that.

They can, and are being made. E.g. the state of accessibility on Gome.

No, by refusing to answer my question I mean refusing to answer my question. Is the quote in the source accurate or not? It is a yes/no question. You can answer it with “yes”, you can answer it with “no”, or you can even give some longer answer if you desire. But you have not answered it in any way.

Best of luck to you too, you need it.

On the contrary, I am trying to build some type of shared understanding, but you are very insistent on never saying if you actually agree with something or not, so I can never be truly sure what you believe, or are actually trying to say. You are also never trying to confirm if you have understood me correctly, suggesting you are the one not really interested in establishing a shared understanding about what we are talking about.

But since you refuse to answer my previous question, I assume you agree that the quotes are accurate. And since you don’t seem interested to further discuss the accuracy of the sources, and because 2/2 sources we looked at were accurate, we can lay the discussion about source accuracy asaide and agree that the sources contain accutate statements, corresponding to Russian state media statements.

Now, it seems the next dispute is what is actually meant by red lines, is that correct? Your thesis seems to be that Russia has not placed any red lines, except for before the invasion of Ukraine (which when crossed triggered the invasion) and now with the F-16s (which would be the only uncrossed one?). But then, what does the quote

Lastly, it warned that “red lines,” or limits, for both sides were now “a thing of the past,”

refer to? Which red lined on the Russian side? It can’t be anything pre-war since those were already broken, and it can’t be the fighter-related one since that one is supposedly still in existence?

No, because the sources do talk about red lines. The quotes even include those specific words.

Now that you realized the sources are actually OK you start redefining what red lines are, even going against what the Russian state itself considers, and even calls, red lines?

Again, please answer the question, are the quotes ftom the article accurate or not. It’s a yes or no question. Discussing is much easier if we can establish what is actually being disputed. We can move on the other questions later.

Don’t avoid the question. Is the source I linked to accurate, or not? You claimed you looked at many sources and that they contained lies about statements Russia never made, yet just by looking at the first two in order that does not seem to be the case.

So, are the quoted in the linked source accurate or not? If yes, let’s take a look at the next source, and then the next, etc. until we find one of the many you claim contains false information.

The discussion started off with fear of escalation. If Russia considers the west part of the war, and thst results in (checks notes) nothing at all, then it seems we are indeed fine, and no need to worry.

And it’s also good you admit that at least some of the sources are good. Shall we now together go through each red line in the Wikipedia article and repeat this excercise?

Let’s take the first source for the previoud broken red line (going in order so there is no cherry picking): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#cite_note-44

The article contains the quote:

The embassy said it was now convinced that Germany and its closest allies were “not interested in a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis” but were “set up for its permanent escalation and unlimited pumping of the Kyiv regime with more and more deadly weapons.”

Lastly, it warned that “red lines,” or limits, for both sides were now “a thing of the past,” echoing similar comments from Russia’s Foreign Ministry earlier Wednesday as it reacted to the prospect of U.S. Abrams tanks being sent to Ukraine, claiming Washington “has unequivocally stated its desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.”

Is your claim that none of the sources given in the article, e.g. https://germany.mid.ru/ru/press-centre/news/kommentariy_posla_rossii_v_germanii_s_yu_nechaeva_o_reshenii_pravitelstva_frg_o_postavkakh_ukraine_t/ contain that information?

I open the very first source for the most recent red line in the wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#cite_note-46

Whst does it say?

In a briefing on Thursday, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova added that Russia “reserves the right to defend its territory”.

If Washington decides to supply longer-range missiles to Kyiv, then it will be crossing a red line, and will become a direct party to the conflict,” Zakharova said.

Is your claim that Zakharova said no such thing?

I’m not sure I follow? Are you saying your friend says I fuck goats, but in fact they do not? Would it not be quite simple to ask them, and dismiss them as a source since they themselves say they aren’t one?

Regardless, when given a source, one looks at the content, not who or what the source is (ad hominem). If there is no argument for rejecting the source based on the content, it should be accepted.

You still have not given a reasoning for rejecting the sources, and instead went on a tangent about my sexual exploits.

I still think you made a good analogy, and as I stated, one should look at what your friend had to say about the goats: if they deny having said anything related to my goats the situation is clear. If they claim it is true, I can check the veracity of their claim. What I don’t do is reject them without first hearing them or expect anyone else to just blindly reject them.

Great analogy! See, I could easily argue that your friend does not know who I am, and thus can’t possibly know if I fuck goats or not. I could also e.g. ask for details, e.g. can your friend tell when I fucked a goat? If yes, great, because maybe I can show that I was, in fact, not fucking goats at the time.

Note how I don’t dismiss your friend as a source simply because they are your friend, as that would be an ad-hominen logical fallacy.

I’m saying that what your sources claim has never been stated by Russia, and none of these sources actually link to anything ever stated by Russia.

Yes, that is a claim you make. It is up to you to support that claim that you are making. That is how discussions generally work.

1. I make a claim
2. I provide sources for said claim
3. You refute the sources
4. You provide an argument for why the sources should not be believed.

Step 4 is what is missing, unless you count “because I say so” as a valid argument.

It would be easy to take a source, look at e.g. a quote in the source, it’s attribution and source, and then check if such a person in fact did make such a claim. If e.g. an article claim person X working for ministry Y made a pressrelease on date Z, but that person is know to work somewhere else, and no press release was made at all that day, then it’s easy to disprove the source. That is how you discuss. Not just “sure, you provided a source, but not the source I wanted, so therefore I will ignore it”. That kind of argumentation is not the least bit productive

1. I have provided sources
2. You have stated you don’t accept those sources
3. You have not made an argument for why the sources are wrong.

Apparently I misunderstood you, and thought you said you had repeatedly told me why the sources are wrong. I asked for a link to where you made the argument, but now you countered with not being able to prove a negative, i.e. you are saying you never gave an argument. Apologies for misunderstanding.

This brings me back to asking you to provide an argument regarding the sources, since you are the one claiming they are unreliable.

Sorry again that I misunderstood you, and hopefully this brings us back on track. I’m also sorry I misunderstood that you were done with the discussion when you said “bye”. I can only assume you meant something else now.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’m happy with the current ones, thanks.

Yes.