BangkokReady

Not false at all. I cited what he said. This is his explanation about the situation as it is now, as he sees it. This is part of the warning he is giving. What is happening now is the context for what may happen in the future. He's hardly going to be warning about the past, that's already happened. You can't cut out part of what someone said and pretend he didn't say anything else. This is called talking something out of context, and that is false.

I know that you can't provide any evidence to support your claim. Is that any help?

I assumed you basically didn't know how the phrase works. "A fellow X" indicates that the speaker believes that he too is an example of whatever the X is. So I thought you had probably made an error, but I had no way of knowing what you meant. You would need to write "A fellow [nationality]" and then go on to describe them.

But you aren't even willing to provide any kind of evidence to support your claim? I think you will have a long wait.

How does that affect what Klimkin said? A report claimed that Russian tanks were preparing to invade Belarus eight months ago, so Klimkin's recent comments definitely meant that Russia will invade Belarus? Why not stop trying to deflect and provide some actual evidence to support your claim?

It's very simple. You just need to provide some evidence for your claim. If you cannot, then of course bringing up unrelated evidence is deflection on your behalf. I've pointed out quite clearly where Klimkin suggest that Russia will not invade Belarus, but you refuse to provide any evidence that he will. Simple. ????‍♂️

I thought you wouldn't be able to prove what you claimed. I was right. Your continued deflection only supports this. ????‍♂️

But he also said this: Sounds like it is more likely to be economical than warfare related.

Waiting for your proof...

Discussing what was actually said is whataboutary??? But you selecting one definition because it supports your claims with no solid connection with what is being discussed isn't??? ????‍♂️ Hilarious! Supply some proof to support your claim (as I have), or be assumed to be wrong, again. Simple as that. ????‍♂️

Sure, right after you prove that Klimkin meant that Russia would invade Belarus... The fact that the two countries are allies and he mentions the Belarus president allowing it seem to go against you.

LOL. You're deflecting, bringing in definitions that you have no idea are even being used. "Keep digging and deflecting by referring to what was said in the OP." LOL You have no idea if the commenter was using that definition, and they mentioned Belarus allowing it to happen. Clearly they aren't talking about Russia invading Belarus, so you're wrong. Simple. ????‍♂️ Just re-read the article if you aren't sure.

You're using a definition of the word he used, LOL. It's pretty clear from the article they aren't talking about Russia invading Belarus. They're allies. ????‍♂️ It's OK to be wrong sometimes. Don't take it so personally. ????‍♂️

And you know that this is the definition that Ukrainian former Foreign Minster was using how?

Yes, the story is about Russia annexing Belarus, but not through invasion like you suggested. What's your point?

They're talking about the president of Belarus allowing it. It isn't about Putin invading anywhere else.

Someone already said this.

Surely it was the 90-day report that got him?

Do they expect people to report on the movements of Thais in the same way? Or are they suggesting that only foreigners need to be watched because they are all dangerous?

Are you saying you're a dirt bag?

It has nothing to do with us and everything to do with Thais.

I noticed that later, but it was too late to edit. It makes you wonder... ????

The kind that believe that intervening will result in their almost certain death with little chance of actually saving the woman. Real life isn't like the movies.

Christ! Is it a full moon or something? Women aren't property to be beaten or killed if they do something that you don't like. If they cheat, leave them.

Good if true.