By the way, you have yet to state what your friends told you beyond that he used a “complex and rare style”. I find that an odd omission on your part, since you’ve not said they’ve disputed what it’s claimed he said is false.
They confirmed the version i've found on the internet earlier and linked you.
Then please give the relevant time stamps from the full length video that show meaningful context was cut.
Let's say 2 minutes before and after the parts in short Russia simp videos, and any cuts in between.
Indeed, that’s why objective standards are important and why I’m pointing out your failure to maintain them are a disservice to your argument.
Your attempt to act as non-neutral arbiter of our "debate" is noted and giving me a chuckle.
The only thing you are fit to point out is your role as self-appointed arbiter of the pseudo-debate trying to establish rules, and judge the debaters, including himself, according to own whim.
Can you take this pathetic debate parody show to someone who cares to watch it?
Let’s see your evidence for that claim.
I haven't seen any people with sympathies opposite to yours on Ukraine war doing so.
Which is exactly my point? By arresting them, it confirmed their information was true. By not arresting Lutsenko or whoever, you leave ambiguity as to whether what he says is true or not.
No, I think that if there is sufficient evidence that you, as an internet anon, feel confident enough to accuse him of being a Russian asset than state level sources like the SBU would have access to that same amount of info.
So you admit that even if the wrong translation is right, it's not conclusive evidence of anything... because SBU schemes to not confirm it despite this reveal being a crime of laeking state secrets. Ok, whatever. Either way, we are back to this being yet another wild guess until proven otherwise by an arrest.
But the translation is probably wrong, hence he can't be arrested because he didn't state any real or fake Ukrainian casualties figure, he just asked the president to release it, on grounds that it would help with the considered very public mobilization drive of
extra 500k soldiers, which could be spread into 30k per month.
Instead, Lutsenko has never been investigated for espionage and you made that up entirely. Please do not make up easily dismissed lies.
How do you know that? Should i notify the SBU of some internet Russia simp parsing through their classified archives? Did some "official" on facebook or twitter tell you that all intelligence investigations regarding espionage have to be public even in wartime? He got a major favor from Russian puppet president, that's suspicious enough.