Net, my dear, you should be the one to write which specific points of the article you disagree with, why you disagree, and what the reality is.
These are your words, and you are responsible for them.
Also, it would be good not to criticize the theses that I myself said were inaccurate (see my conversation with Snoopy). There aren't many of them, far from 95% of the article's content.
Your problem is that you don't support your words with specifics, you don't elaborate on your point of view. You just declare, "I'm D'Artagnan, and you're all..." (edited - censorship!). Someone already passed by, boasting about their knowledge of history, but quickly faltered when asked simple questions.
My argument is supported by reasoning, which I am ready to elaborate on or detail further, depending on the interlocutor's requests, so that the discussion focuses on the essence of the issue and does not turn into a measuring contest. This is also why I include links to articles - sometimes it's too much work to type out kilobytes of text, it's easier to copy and paste what's already written.
1. Thank you, but I don't owe anyone anything. I have even less time; I can only come here at night to read. I don't have the time or desire to respond to the ramblings of numerous "wise men" and "soothsayers." When you write something worthwhile, I acknowledge it, and that's usually the case, but when there's a flawed statement, I'm sorry, you recommend READING OTHER PEOPLE'S WRITINGS, and I recommend NOT READING. If you take this too personally, that's your individual trait, and there's no need to make a big deal out of it.
2. I always stand by my words with specifics. If you want to discuss specific issues, I'm all for it, but I can't guarantee quick answers, and again, I will only respond to articles written personally, not to the products of other people's activities.
Missiles are not needed to launch them, but to have more sovereignty. In big politics, it's like in the jungle - whoever is stronger is right. No one intends to use force; the mere possibility of using it is enough.
For example, in Syria, several Russian ships with weapons capable of destroying American aircraft carriers arrived, stood in the harbor, conducted some exercises, and sailed away. This is a typical demonstration of force - we have weapons, we are not afraid to deliver them to the area of your interests, and we will not be punished for it. It is clear that no one was going to fight, but this step allowed us to gain an advantage at the negotiating table. That's how big politics is done.
It's true that, in theory, the strong can boast, but the strong don't always win. Moreover, a demonstration of force is a sign of weakness.
