What facts do you think I've spun
@Mendel? Pinpoint them and I'll address them.
To
not see in the timing of the alleged 'accident'
anything curious appears to me as a lack of appreciation of a universe of facts as regards the geopolitical context and regional history. In addition to naivetë in accepting the narrative of 'an accident'. Disclaimer: Me stating all this does not preclude the
possibility it actually is an accident.
Unlike Berger who swiftly jumped to claim "accident", I haven't assumed a thing. I
have pointed out that this new leak adds credence to Russia's geopolitical signalling claim which, in turn, regards
plausible deniability as a given. It's
supposed to look like an accident. "Adds credence" is not logically equivalent to "assuming". A historical pattern of activities by a repeat offender adds credence to the claim that a new event seemingly following the same pattern points to the same offender. It's a sensible claim. But it's still unproven.
I think that's a simplistic claim which you do not have the credentials to make authoritatively. Cite an expert. And even if it has left obvious clues, there's reason to deny any existence of such clues on the part of a NATO government as well as Russia at this sensitive and inflammatory juncture of the conflict.
That's another simplification which you do not have the credentials to make authoritatively. Cite an expert.
@Landru, while I agree with the guideline on most issues, there's a caveat which I'd like you to consider here.
It gets tricky to converse even at a basic level of exploring relevant hypotheses if we premise it on direct evidence while discussing operations where plausible deniability (i.e.
calculated attempts at producing 'no direct evidence') is the prime objective.
But if that's your ruling, I will abide by it.