Comments by "foil hat" (@foilhat1138) on "Moscow analyst: Russia wants "permanent war" with West | Conflict Zone" video.

@billcarson818 Oh the peace treaty conspiracy theory.
2
@billcarson818 Here's what Arakhamia, who was in the room, said: “First of all, in order to agree to this point, you have to change the constitution. Our aspiration towards NATO is written in the constitution. Also, there is no trust in the Russians that they will do this. This would only be possible if there were security guarantees. We couldn’t sign something, go away, everybody there would breathe a sigh of relief, and then they would come more prepared, because in fact, when they invaded, they were unprepared for such resistance. We could only work on this when we were 100% sure that this intrusion would never happen again. However, there is no such belief. Arakhamia also denied the fact that the Ukrainian delegation was ready to sign the document and Boris Johnson stopped them. According to his own words, the Western partners were informed about the negotiations and had seen the draft versions of the agreement, but they did not make decisions on behalf of Ukraine
2
@billcarson818 That's not how the burden of proof works, you are the one making the claim, you are the one that needs to provide evidence. Nobody said anything about a peace treaty for over a year after Russia's retreat from Kyiv and then Putin suddenly mentioned it in a press conference. It wasn't even the initial narrative, they claimed at first that the run on Kyiv was 'just a feint' an equally absurd claim.
1
@billcarson818 Do you have any arguments bill? Doesn't look like it.
1
@billcarson818 Arakhamia is a diplomat, not a politician. Notice how I post actual evidence and you just post hearsay with no basis in reality? Why not post the 'concrete information' you are looking at?
1
@billcarson818 He was an advisor to the minister of defense and is currently a diplomat. His political career never really took off. Do you think copy pasting Wikipedia is a good argument? How can I moan about the source you provide when you haven't provided any sources regarding the phantom peace treaty? You are just making baseless assertions completely divorced from reality. Please provide the 'concrete information' you claim to have instead of continuing to side step the question.
1
@billcarson818 Also stop liking your own comments its completely shameless.
1
@billcarson818 All you said was "Im looking at the facts based on the concrete information we have" At no point did you come even close to answering any question. All you've done is cry about how much you dont like politicians. Which isn't an argument for anything. For the final time what is the 'concrete information' you think exists?
1
@billcarson818 Let me guess the concrete information is 'trust me bro.'
1
@billcarson818 You are the one liking your own posts, why take the time if it doesn't mean anything to you? Are you ready to provide this mysterious 'concrete information' yet?
1
@billcarson818 All you've done is insist you are right with no evidence and whine about politicians. No there is no 'concrete information' because you made it up. It should be very easy for you to prove your point but you cant because its imaginary. Have fun living in a fantasy world.
1
@billcarson818 There are zero comments where you give me an example of a report. Again it should be very for you to prove your point, but you cant.
1
@billcarson818 Well try again, it should be easy to convince me with your concrete information.
1
@billcarson818 So you don't believe what Arakhamia said but you use him as proof? Do you understand how idiotic that sounds? The quote I gave from him was his clarification of his statement. I'll post it again try to read it carefully. “First of all, in order to agree to this point, you have to change the constitution. Our aspiration towards NATO is written in the constitution. Also, there is no trust in the Russians that they will do this. This would only be possible if there were security guarantees. We couldn’t sign something, go away, everybody there would breathe a sigh of relief, and then they would come more prepared, because in fact, when they invaded, they were unprepared for such resistance. We could only work on this when we were 100% sure that this [intrusion] would never happen again. However, there is no such belief." Arakhamia also denied the fact that the Ukrainian delegation was ready to sign the document and Boris Johnson stopped them. According to his own words, the Western partners were informed about the negotiations and had seen the draft versions of the agreement, but "they did not make decisions on behalf of Ukraine and could only give advice." Accordingly, David Arakhamia did not say that Ukraine was ready to sign a document promising peace in exchange for neutrality. Arakhamia’s interview reveals that Ukraine was not going to sign the document even before receiving Boris Johnson’s advice, therefore, it is manipulative to claim that the Russia-Ukraine agreement failed because of Boris Johnson or that Ukraine made the decision because of his position.
1
@billcarson818 So you don't believe what Arakhamia said but you use him as your evidence? Do you understand how idiotic that sounds? The quote I gave from him was his clarification of his statement. I already posted what he said, feel free to reread it if you want. Accordingly, Arakhamia did not say that Ukraine was ready to sign a document promising peace in exchange for neutrality. Arakhamia’s interview reveals that Ukraine was not going to sign the document even before receiving Boris Johnson’s advice, therefore, it is manipulative to claim that the Russia-Ukraine agreement failed because of Boris Johnson or that Ukraine made the decision because of his position.
1
@billcarson818 Accordingly, Arakhamia did not say that Ukraine was ready to sign a document promising peace in exchange for neutrality. Arakhamia’s interview reveals that Ukraine was not going to sign the document even before receiving Boris Johnson’s advice, therefore, it is manipulative to claim that the Russia-Ukraine agreement failed because of Boris Johnson or that Ukraine made the decision because of his position.
1