...
Firstly, I asked you to comment on the WaPo article that found that the US public was being lied to about this specific issue. That's now verified after months and months of lies. Address that!
As regards your 'debunking' article - it's no different than a post from you saying "there are no biolabs". What else did it provide? By contrast, the WaPo article confirms evidence of deceit in relation to the issue.
YOU started with the 'fake news' claims. The WaPo article states that it - and other mainstream media have to take responsibility for disinformation. Respond to that please.
Firstly, nobody said that there 'must' be a division of blame - but more often than not, there is. Governments responsibilities to people as a very basic should be to prevent war in the first place.
On formal agreements, they're fine Odyssey06 when they suit the narrative and not so when they don't. Are you denying that the US provided assurances that there would be no expansion into eastern europe? Answer that before we go any further.
Secondly, you think if tomorrow, Russia got together with Mexico and decided to put in various weaponry that there wouldn't be a problem? We already know the answer to that because on that occasion, it put us on the brink of nuclear war. It's double standards.
The claims about bioweapons in ukraine are without foundation. You have nothing to substantiate them.
The articles explain what the labs are doing. There are not developing bioweapons. There is no article that will satisfy you as you have now locked in on a conspiracy theory and refuse any evidence to the contrary, despite having no actual evidence in support of bioweapons labs!
And I repeat, you posted all this here and only when challenged on this thread did you subject the claims to any scrutiny!
Not much scrutiny really seeing as any article provided explaining what the labs do and why they are not bioweapons you dismiss.
Provide some actual evidence of bioweapons labs or stop peddling fake news.
You don't have any evidence so instead your resort to disinformation and muddying the waters about he said she said.
I have linked to articles from reputable media sites explaining why the claims are fake news.
It is your claim about bioweapons, is is up to your to substantiate why it isn't fake news.
Nobody reading this thread is buying what you are selling.
The Guardian article I linked re: verbal assurances explains the situation, which is why I linked to it.
A signed agreement between the countries \ parties that occured after the verbal assurances, signed agreements which occurred over 20 years ago. Something which obviously trumps verbal assurances given at an earlier point in time.
But hey, that doesn't matter, because you just dodge that by saying they are fine when they suit the narrative!
So the verbal assurances are irrelevent. Whether they were or were not given it would not change anything today.
But remind me, where in the agreements between NATO, Ukraine and Russia does it say Ukraine cannot join NATO?
If it is such a red line for Russia.
Russia wouldn't get together with Mexico because the US hasn't recently invaded Mexico multiple times in the last decade and so hasn't driven its neutral neighbour into looking for defensive alliances.
You are referencing something that happened in the 1960s in Cuba. Cuba is still there, not nuked.
Kalingrad is there beside NATO capitals, with nuclear missiles.