I find this just aggravating beyond belief:
During its military adventurism, Russia has generated uncertainty and plausible deniability regarding its role in clandestine operations, such as in Crimea, which has helped the Kremlin sidestep the imposition of meaningful repercussions by the West or international community.
Such as in Crimea? Seriously? That denial was plausible?
It was obvious from the start that Russia was invading Crimea!
And who actually believes that the "rebels" in the Donbas are anything but Russian hand puppets when not actual Russian troops "on vacation," or whatever BS Russian explanation for their presence is on any given day?
As I've complained many times, Russia's "new" way of "hybrid" war consists of:
1) Russia invading somebody,
2) Russia denying that they are invading somebody, and
3) The West going along with Russia's denial that they are invading somebody.
I swear to God, we didn't need four years to conclude Russia was responsible for supplying the anti-aircraft missile--even if it didn't pull the trigger--and supporting and providing the "rebels" in the Donbas who shot down that Malaysian airliner with all aboard killed.
