> ... it should be clear that "just asking questions" only applies when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, and where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance. If, for example, someone phrased their political argument as a series of questions — but provided sources to back up said questions, or has raised logical arguments in said questions — then it is not enough to dismiss the argument as "just asking questions".
So, the IAEA and Grossi either can't establish where the shells are fired from (hard to believe given the prolonged and intensive nature of the shelling and the amount of evidence) or are hesitant / not allowed to incriminate the party they believe is responsible.
If we apply the same logic of no A : no B, then "Russian invasion" would be the B in some other equation, e.g., no A : no Russian invasion. What would that A be?
You sound fairly confident in all of your responses, but as soon as the question leads to anything less convenient, you bail. I encourage you to spend less time watching/reading the mass media news.
NATO never would have accepted Ukraine but now that Russia has invaded Ukraine if the Russians get kicked out it might just happen. See also: Finland, Sweden.
Note that since you claim you are Dutch: it's amazing that given your access to news sources that you should be carrying water for a party that does not exactly have your best interests at heart, and I'm saying that as someone who has lived in a country under Russian occupation.
So, the IAEA and Grossi either can't establish where the shells are fired from (hard to believe given the prolonged and intensive nature of the shelling and the amount of evidence) or are hesitant / not allowed to incriminate the party they believe is responsible.