Russian President asks Western leaders to make Kiev negotiate peace.

[pampango]

83. Now we are getting somewhere. I accept your definiton of an invasion. Now what evidence

that "organized formations" had crossed a foreign border would you accept as convincing evidence? None of us are prone to just accept the word of one side or another since both have cause to "spin" events to their advantage.

Do those "organized formations" have to show up in the other country's capital (the global-warming equivalent of the rising seas swallowing your house) or is there some evidence short of that an invasion was occurring? And without the UN or OSCE or some other group on the border, how can one know if an 'organized formation' is crossing the border or not? Would an international presence on the border be useful in removing any doubt that Russia was not sending an 'organized force' into Ukraine? It sounds like something that both side could support.

I'm trying to come up with some types of evidence and ways to obtain them that would make this something other than a "he said, she said", "I support my team regardless of any stinking evidence" type of issue. OTOH, if one side - or both sides - say that evidence does not matter, "I already know which side I am on and it's not going to change", then it becomes a "climate change" discussion where facts do not matter at least to one side.

Or in the interest of which side it is to prevent evidence from being obtained? Does Kiev benefit more or the pro-Russian side?

And we all know only the United States has the right to preemptively invade other countries without prior provocation. Well, I guess Israel can too.

Actually no country has that right as I'm sure you will agree. It has been done many times in history by many countries but that does not make it 'right' or give modern countries that 'right'.