I don't entirely agree with your comments. Except on one point. And it reveals that a legally neutral opinion (therefore based on everything that allows it to be attached to it), cannot give free rein to the expression of a personal opinion. So how to incarnate in there one wonders...
By the way, there is nothing risky in my remarks, and it is not enough to say that they would be so for them to be so. It's too easy, and besides, it's not the first time you've done this to us, Ahmed.
Politically — because my positions, when there are any, are therefore (geo)political — clearly go against what violates the law (being for the "rule of law") — political but not devoid of legal bases (and therefore, with all my faults, I tend towards impartiality) — and the other reason for these positions is that Western propaganda is very strong, and that I counter it somewhat. weight very modestly, but always based on facts and law. I do not allow myself, however, to fake these. If I did, I would destroy the foundation of my thoughts and I'm not playing it (that's what helps to see clearly...)
In the case of the Latvian Prime Minister, it is non-sequitur since his position itself is not neutral. And the rest of his statement is a falsehood, in that:
1) it would tend to make people believe in a paralogism (I am being polite) which would make Russia feel guilty for having premeditated its action (even though Western experts (and in particular Americans) have admitted that the Russians had done everything, and absolutely everything to avoid the dispute.)
2) it is a fact known and admitted by many experts and politicians, that armaments have been supplied to Ukraine by the West since the very beginning, 8 years ago. Hence his argument based on "
a presumption of guilt", falls to the fleet at the moment "T". The Russians were quite shrewd because before February 24, we can say that they showed the bad faith and duplicity of the Westerners until the end of the end and in a way This is why all these confessions take on their full meaning on the contrary.
3) I deduce that, at best, his political opinion is based on distrust, and that if not sophistical, it is ideologically militant (since at the time he announced it, he could not ignore Merkel/Hollande's prior confession). It is therefore the presumptuous remarks of an agent of the system. Arrogant words from a Westerner who has defined that he has the truth on his side, and that is precisely all or part of what leads us to the reasons for this war. So I deliberately truncated it to keep only what remained of "true" (and which I rightly take for SPONTANEOUS confessions, if one can say... because sometimes in legal proceedings, the parties do, even without realizing it.)
Now, if I am reproached, it must be done on a specific case, not an amalgam.